(Zimvac) 2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment Matabeleland South Provincial Report

Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) 2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment Matabeleland South Provincial Report

ZimVAC is coordinated by the Food and Nutrition Council Housed at SIRDC: 1574 Alpes Road, Road Hatcliffe, Harare Tel: +263-242-862586/ +263-242-862025. Website: www.fnc.org.zw. Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @FNCZimbabwe. Instagram: fnc_zim. Facebook:@FNCZimbabwe

1 Foreword

In its endeavour to ‘promote and ensure adequate food and nutrition security for all people at all times’, the Government of Zimbabwe continues to exhibit its commitment towards reducing food and nutrition insecurity, poverty and improving livelihoods amongst the vulnerable populations in Zimbabwe through operationalization of Commitment 6 of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP). Under the coordination of the Food and Nutrition Council, the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) undertook the 2021 Rural Livelihoods Assessment, the 21st since its inception. ZimVAC is a technical advisory committee comprised of representatives from Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. Through its assessments, ZimVAC continues to collect, synthesize and disseminate high quality information on the food and nutrition security situation in a timely manner.

The 2021 RLA was motivated by the need to provide credible and timely data to inform progress of commitments in the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS 1) and inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people in both their short and long-term vulnerability context. Furthermore, as the ‘new normal’ under COVID-19 remains fluid and dynamic, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, the assessment sought to provide up to date information on how rural food systems and livelihoods have been impacted by the pandemic. The report covers thematic areas which include the following: education, food and income sources, income levels, expenditure patterns, food security, COVID-19, WASH, social protection and gender-based violence, among other issues.

Our sincere appreciation goes to the ZimVAC as well as the food and nutrition security structures at both provincial and district levels for successfully carrying out the survey. These structures continue to exhibit great commitment towards ensuring that every Zimbabwean remains free from hunger and malnutrition. We also extend our appreciation to Government and Development Partners for the financial support and technical leadership which made the assessment a resounding success. The collaboration of the rural communities of Zimbabwe as well as the rural local authorities is sincerely appreciated. The leadership, coordination and management of the whole assessment displayed by the staff at the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC) is also greatly appreciated.

We submit this report to you for your use and reference in your invaluable work. We hope it will light your way as you search for lasting measures in addressing priority issues keeping many of our rural households vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity.

George D. Kembo (DR.) FNC Director/ ZimVAC Chairperson 2 Table of Contents Foreword…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………...... 2 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………………..4 Acronyms.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………….………….. 6 Background and Introduction…..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……..……………………..7 Assessment Purpose….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..………………………….…. 11 Assessment Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………………..…….……16 Demographic Description of the Sample……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………..……………… 27 Education……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... …………………………………..…………..……………………..…………….. 34 Chronic Illness………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………37 Social Protection…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……….………………………… 43 Agricultural Production……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..…………..………………………..…………………… 49 Incomes and Expenditure……………………………………………………..……………………………………………….………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…………..111 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..117 Access to Services and Infrastructure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 137 ISALS and Loans……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..146 Food Consumption Patterns…………………………………………………………………….……………..……..………………………………………………………..…………..……………………………..………..……..151 Livelihoods Based Coping Strategies………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………...………….166 Complementary Feeding………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………………171 Child Nutrition Status……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 173 Gender Based Violence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………….…180 COVID-19 and Livelihoods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….………………………. ……………………………………….…189 Shocks and Stressors……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..……..…………………………………………………………..…………..…………………………….195 Food Security……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 202 Community Development Challenges and Priorities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………212 Conclusions and Recommendations…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………..…………..…………..…………………….216

3 Acknowledgements The technical and financial support received from the following is greatly appreciated:

• Office of the President and Cabinet • United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) • Rural District Councils (RDCs)

• Food and Nutrition Council • United Nations Development Programme- ZRBF • Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger and Malnutrition (REACH) • SIRDC • UNFPA-Spotlight Initiative • Bindura University of Science Education • Ministry of Finance and Economic Development • Catholic Relief Services (CRS) • Marondera University of Agricultural Sciences • Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water • Progress and Technology and Rural Resettlement • United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) • Hand in Hand • Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare • Sizimele • Care International • • Ministry of Health and Child Care MELANA • Tsuro

• Ministry of Local Government, Public Works and • Coordinamento Delle Organizzazioni Peril Servizio • Welthungerhilfe (WHH) National Housing Volontario (COSV) • GOAL • Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Small • Local Initiatives and Development Agency (LID) • Plan International and Medium Enterprise Development • Adventist Relief Agency (ADRA) • Sustainable Agriculture Trust (SAT) • Public Service Commission • Caritas • Ministry of Health and Child Care • Mwenezi Development Training Centre • World Vision (MDTC) • United States Agency for International • Lutheran Development Services (LDS) Development (USAID) • Nutrition Action Zimbabwe (NAZ) • Leonard Cheshire Disability Zimbabwe • Zimbabwe Defence Forces • Africa Ahead • MAVAMBO • Mercy Corps • Action Aid • CARITAS Harare 4 Acknowledgement of Support

ZIMBABWE

5 Acronyms

EA Enumeration Area

FNC Food and Nutrition Council

FNSP Food and Nutrition Security Policy

FNSIS Food and Nutrition Security Information System

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score

HHS Household Hunger Score

NNS National Nutrition Survey

RLA Rural Livelihoods Assessment

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee

6 Introduction and Background

7 Introduction

• ZimVAC livelihoods assessments’ results continue to be an important tool for informing and guiding policies and programmes that respond to the prevailing food and nutrition security situation. To date, 21 rural and 8 urban livelihoods updates have been produced.

• ZimVAC plays a significant role in fulfilling Commitment Six, of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP) (GoZ, 2012), in which the “Government of Zimbabwe is committed to ensuring a national integrated food and nutrition security information system that provides timely and reliable information on the food and nutrition security situation and the effectiveness of programmes and informs decision- making”.

• It has become mandatory for FNC to coordinate annual livelihoods updates with the technical support of ZimVAC.

8 Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC)

ZimVAC is a consortium of Government, Development Partners, UN, NGOs, Technical Agencies and the Academia. It was established in 2002 and is led and regulated by Government. It is chaired by FNC, a department in the Office of the President and Cabinet whose mandate is to promote a multi-sectoral response to food insecurity and nutrition problems in a manner that ensures that every Zimbabwean is free from hunger and malnutrition.

ZimVAC supports Government, particularly FNC in:

• Convening and coordinating national food and nutrition security issues in Zimbabwe

• Charting a practical way forward for fulfilling legal and existing policy commitments in food and nutrition security

• Advising Government on the strategic direction in food and nutrition security

• Undertaking a “watchdog role” and supporting and facilitating action to ensure sector commitments in food and nutrition are kept on track through a number of core functions such as:

▪ Undertaking food and nutrition assessments, analysis and research;

▪ Promoting multi-sectoral and innovative approaches for addressing food and nutrition insecurity, and:

▪ Supporting and building national capacity for food and nutrition security including at sub-national levels. 9 Assessment Rationale

• The performance of the agricultural season, with the disruption of food systems and markets, the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with the prevailing macro-economic environment has affected the livelihoods of the rural population.

• The impact on the livelihoods, which has ripple effects on household wellbeing outcomes, had not been quantified and ascertained hence the need to carry out a livelihoods assessment.

• The assessment results will be used to:

• Inform planning for targeted interventions to help the vulnerable people, given the prevailing situation in the country as well as their long term vulnerability context.

• Inform short, medium and long term interventions that address immediate and long term needs as well as building resilient livelihoods.

• Monitor and report towards commitments within the guiding frameworks of existing national food and nutrition policies and strategies among them the National Development Strategy 1, the Food and Nutrition Security Policy and the Zero Hunger Strategy.

• Monitor interventions to ensure adherence to the principles spelt out in regional and international frameworks which Zimbabwe has committed itself to which include the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the SDGs.

• Guide early warning for early action 10 Purpose

The overall purpose of the assessment was to provide an annual update on livelihoods in Zimbabwe’s rural areas, for the purposes of informing policy formulation and programming appropriate interventions.

11 Objectives The specific objectives of the assessment were:

• To estimate the population that is likely to be food insecure in the 2021/22 consumption year, their geographic distribution and the severity of their food insecurity.

• Assess impact and severity of COVID-19 on rural livelihoods.

• To assess the nutrition status of children of 6 – 59 months.

• To describe the socio-economic profiles of rural households in terms of such characteristics as their demographics, access to basic services (education, health services and water and sanitation facilities), assets, income sources, incomes and expenditure patterns, food consumption patterns and consumption coping strategies.

• To determine the coverage of humanitarian and developmental interventions in the country.

• To identify development priorities for communities.

• To determine the effects of shocks experienced by communities on food and nutrition security.

• To measure household resilience and identify constraints to improving their resilience.

• To identify early recovery needs in order to determine short to long term recovery strategies.

12 Background

• The 2021 RLA was undertaken against a continuously evolving food and nutrition security situation.

• Since its genesis, the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to wreak havoc on both urban and rural populations. The ‘new normal’ under COVID-19 remains fluid and dynamic, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. The pandemic has had implications on food security and nutrition as food systems have been affected and threatened people’s access to food via multiple dynamics.

• Food supply chains have been disrupted due to lockdowns triggered by the global health crisis, but also a major global economic slowdown. This has led to lower incomes and higher food prices, making food out of reach for vulnerable households. The strict and widespread control measures are unsustainable in the long term. The impact of the pandemic amidst other shocks will likely cause significant deterioration and erosion of livelihoods, productive assets as well as the food and nutrition security of vulnerable households. The closure of rural food and livestock markets will affect the incomes of rural livelihoods. At the same time, closures of restaurants and hotels will continue to reduce the demand for fresh produce, meat and fish, reducing the incomes of farmers, livestock keepers and suppliers.

• The vulnerable rural households have little to nothing to cushion the effects of the shock (pandemic). As they experience market failures, they have little or no access to formal insurance, and credit and risk management mechanisms. The vulnerable households have challenges in accessing liquidity, worsened by reduced casual labour opportunities and the closure of informal markets where they tend to sell their products. The enforcement of social distancing combined with the covariate nature of the crisis will likely overwhelm and/or reduce the rural households’ access to traditional community networks and institutions of social reciprocity, which have historically provided a safety net in times of crisis.

• Requirements to maintain social distancing and travel restrictions are negatively impacting programme delivery and humanitarian and developmental activities, which threatens food and nutrition security.

13 Background

• Travel restrictions and border closures are likely to delay the movement of the essential supplies such as fertilizers which are crucial for the preparation for the 2021/2022 cropping season. The disruption of agricultural inputs supplies is likely to affect the progression of the current agricultural season which is very much needed to start the recovery from the back to back droughts that have been experienced in the recent past and affect farmers’ livelihoods. This could have longer-term implications on the food and nutrition security of households.

• Agriculture as one of the key economic sectors fundamental to the projected economic growth aspired for under the Government's Vision 2030 had a good start to the 2020/21 rainfall season. The country experienced Tropical Storm Chalene and Tropical Cyclone Eloise, which increased average cumulative rainfall from October 2020 to end of January 2021. This resulted in improved water availability and access, improved livestock condition, improved pasture quality availability and quality. However, the incessant rains also increased the risk of tick- borne diseases as well as foot rot in livestock.

• The 2020/2021 agriculture season recorded an increase in the area planted to maize and soya beans owing to the overwhelming support by Government and the private sector. However, challenges reported in the sector include crop damage due to Fall armyworm, crop damage due to Tropical Storm Chalene and Tropical Cyclone Eloise (particularly, Chimanimani and Chipinge districts), water logging as well as fertilizer shortages.

• With the majority of the rural population’s livelihoods mostly influenced by agriculture (both crops and livestock), the experienced climate related shocks may negatively affect household food and nutrition security. 14 Background

• Poverty continues to be one of the major underlying causes of vulnerability to food and nutrition insecurity as well as precarious livelihoods in Zimbabwe. According to the ZIMSTAT Poverty, Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey 2017 Report, 70.5% of the population were poor whilst 29.3% were deemed extremely poor.

• Year on year inflation for April 2021 was at 194.1%.

15 Assessment Methodology

16 Methodology – Assessment Design

• The assessment was a cross-sectional study whose design was guided and informed by the Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual framework (Figure 1), which Zimbabwe adopted in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012), and the conceptual framework on food security dimensions propounded by Jones et al. (2013). • The assessment was also guided and informed by the resilience framework (figure 2) so as to influence the early recovery of households affected by various shocks. • The assessment looked at food availability and access as pillars that have confounding effects on food security as defined in the FNSP (GoZ, 2012). • Accordingly, the assessment measured the amount of energy available to a household from all its potential sources hence the primary sampling unit for the Figure 1: Food and Nutrition Conceptual Framework assessment was the household.

17 Figure 2: Zimbabwe resilience framework (UNDP Zimbabwe, 2015)

18 19 Methodology – Assessment Process

• ZimVAC, through multi-stakeholder consultations, developed an appropriate assessment design concept note and data collection tools informed by the assessment objectives.

• The primary data collection tools used in the assessment were the android–based structured household questionnaire and the community Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide.

• ZimVAC national supervisors (including Provincial Agritex Extension Officers and Provincial Nutritionists) and enumerators were recruited from Government, United Nations, Technical partners and Non-Governmental Organisations. These underwent training in all aspects of the assessment. In order to minimise risk of spreading COVID-19, training for both supervisors and enumerators was done virtually.

• The Ministry of Health and Child Care was the lead ministry in the development of the Infection, Prevention and Control (IPC) guidelines which guided processes from survey planning to data collection.

• The Ministry of Local Government, through the Provincial Development Coordinators’ offices coordinated the recruitment of district level enumerators and mobilisation of provincial supervision and district enumeration vehicles. Enumerators for the current assessment were drawn from an already existing database of those who participated in one or two previous ZimVAC assessments. Four enumerators were selected from each district for data collection. In selected districts, two additional enumerators were recruited as anthropometrists.

20 Methodology – Assessment Process

• Primary data collection took place from 3 to 20 July, 2021. In recognising the risk of spreading COVID-19 during data collection, innovative approaches were used to collect vital information without causing any harm. The RLA was guided by global and country specific recommendations and all necessary precautions were taken to avoid potential transmission of COVID-19 between enumerators and community members.

• In order to reduce exposure to COVID-19 through person to person physical contact, primary caregivers were capacitated to measure their children using Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tapes and assessment of oedema. In the case of anthropometrists recruited from MoHCC, additional appropriate PPE was provided (gloves, disposable plastic aprons) to enable them to measure participants aged 5 to 19 years in twenty selected districts.

• Data analysis and report writing ran from 23 May to 3 June 2021. Various secondary data sources and field observations were used to contextualise the analysis and reporting.

21 Methodology - Sampling and Sample Size

• Household food insecurity prevalence was used as the key indicator to determine the sample to ensure 95% confidence level of statistical representativeness at Number of Sampled Districts district, provincial and national level. Households

• The survey collected data from 175 randomly selected Enumerated Areas (EAs) in Beitbridge 242 the province: Bulilima 250 • A two staged cluster sampling was used and comprised of; Gwanda 250 • Sampling of 25 clusters per each of the 7 rural districts, denoted as EAs in this assessment, from the Zimbabwe Statistics Agency (ZIMSTAT) 2012 master Insiza 251

sampling frame using the PPS methodology Mangwe 245 • The second stage involved the systematic random sampling of 10 households Matobo 253 per EA (village). Umzingwane 245 • At most, 250 households were interviewed per district, bringing the total sampled households in the province to 1736 Total 1736

• 5 FGDs were held per district.

22 Methodology – Sampled Wards

23 Data Preparation and Analysis

• Primary data was transcribed using CSEntry on android gadgets and using CSPro. It was consolidated and converted into SPSS, STATA and DBF datasets for: • Household structured interviews • District key informant Focus Group Discussion (transcribed in excel)

• Data cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS, STATA, ENA, Microsoft Excel and GIS packages.

• Analyses of the different thematic areas covered by the assessment were informed and guided by relevant local and international frameworks, where they exist.

• Gender, as a cross cutting issue, was recognised throughout the analysis.

24 Technical Scope

The 2021 RLA collected and analysed information on the following thematic areas:

• Education

• Health

• WASH

• Nutrition

• Agriculture and other rural livelihoods activities

• Food security

• Resilience

• Social protection

• Linkages amongst the key sectoral and thematic areas

• Cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability 25 Assessment Findings

26 Household Demographics

27 Household Characteristics (Household Size)

District Average Minimum Maximum Beitbridge 4.6 1.0 16.0

Bulilima 4.8 1.0 14.0

Mangwe 4.8 1.0 14.0

Gwanda 4.7 1.0 15.0

Insiza 3.7 1.0 14.0

Matobo 3.8 1.0 12.0

Umzingwane 4.4 1.0 14.0

Mat South 4.4 1.0 16.0

• The average household size Matabeleland South was 4.4. • Bulilima and Mangwe Districts had the biggest average household size in the province at 4.8.

28 Characteristics of Household Head (Sex and Age)

Sex of Household Head (%) Age of Household Head

District Male Female Average Minimum Beitbridge 59.1 40.9 51.4 18.0

Bulilima 37.6 62.4 55.8 15.0

Mangwe 42.0 58.0 57.2 17.0

Gwanda 55.8 44.2 58.3 18.0

Insiza 57.6 42.4 52.3 18.0

Matobo 62.5 37.5 57.5 20.0

Umzingwane 60.8 39.2 53.9 17.0

Mat South 53.6 46.4 55.2 15.0

• Bulilima (62.4%) and Mangwe (58%) had the highest proportion of households which were female headed. • The average age of household head was 55.2. 29 Characteristics of Household Head: Religion

Roman Apostolic Other Other Catholic Protestant Pentecostal Sect Zion Christian Traditional religion No religion District (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Beitbridge 1.7 0.8 17.4 27.7 10.3 6.2 5.0 0.4 30.6

Bulilima 3.2 2.4 6.8 16.8 34.4 13.6 2.4 0.4 20.0

Mangwe 24.9 3.2 4.0 16.5 32.5 2.8 2.4 4.4 9.2

Gwanda 1.6 17.9 14.3 15.5 18.3 8.8 1.2 2.4 19.9

Insiza 2.9 12.8 17.3 29.6 19.8 1.2 1.6 2.9 11.5

Matobo 10.3 3.2 10.7 9.5 28.2 12.3 0.0 6.7 19.0

Umzingwane 2.4 8.2 12.7 21.6 12.7 10.6 1.2 3.3 27.3

Mat South 6.8 6.9 11.8 19.5 22.4 8.0 2.0 2.9 19.6

• About 19.6% of the household heads in the province reported that they followed no religion.

• The most common religion among household heads in the province was Zion (22.4%). 30 Household Head Education Level

Mat South 22 41 13 21 2

Umzingwane 23 35 11 28 3

Matobo 18 29 22 26 6

Insiza 9 48 15 25 2

Gwanda 19 46 12 22 2

Mangwe 16 52 13 17 2

Bulilima 44 40 4 10 1

Beitbridge 25 39 14 22 0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% None Primary level ZJC level O' level A Level and above

• At least 41% of households in the province were headed by members with primary level education and 21% with O Level. • This minimal level of education shows the ability of the respondents to interact with the subject of the research. 31 Characteristics of Household Head: Marital Status

100 4 4 10 8 6 7 6 6 90 25 24 80 35 27 27 30 70 37 38 8 9 4 60 7 6 12 4 8 8 10 9 50 5 6 11 40 15 14 30 51 50 50 50 55 20 46 33 34

Proportion of Household Heads (%) Heads Household of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Married living together Married living apart Divorced/seperated Widowed Never married

• Mangwe had the highest proportion of household heads who were widowed (38%). • Bulilima had the highest proportion of household heads who were married and living apart (15%).

32 Orphaned Children by District 100 90 80 70 60 50 40

30 24 26 25 19 20 20 16 17 Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 14 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• At least 20% of the households had orphans in Matabeleland South. • The highest proportion of households that had orphans was in Insiza (26%) whilst the lowest was in Mangwe (14%).

33 Education

34 School Attendance

100 90 79 80 75 74 74 73 71 71 70 65 60 50 40 31 30 24 26 21 20 22

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 17 10 6 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Currently going to school Ever sent away from school during the first term because of non- payment of fees

• The proportion of children attending school in the province was 73% whilst 27% where not in school. Matobo (65%) had the lowest proportion of children attending school. • In the province, about 22% of children of school going age were once sent away for non-payment of fees during the first term.

• Umzingwane (31%) had the highest proportion of children who were once sent away for non-payment of fees during the first term. 35 Major Reasons for Children Not Being in School

Not Non- Expensive Child intereste payment of Distance Work for Help with Failure or no Completed considered Pregnancy d in last term to school food or househol No food e.g. of money O/A level too young /marriage school school fees Illness too far money d work at home exams District (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Beitbridge 20 20 6.7 20 0 0 0 0 6.7 0 6.7 0

Bulilima 66.7 2.8 8.3 11.1 5.6 5.6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mangwe 75 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gwanda 35.7 35.7 7.1 0 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Insiza 22.2 11.1 11.1 0 0 11.1 0 11.1 0 0 0 0

Matobo 50 16.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.7 0 0

Umzingwane 40.6 25 9.4 4.7 4.7 0 3.1 1.6 0 0 0 1.6

Mat South 44.6 18.2 8.8 6.8 4.1 2 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

• The majority of children (44.6%) were not attending school because of lack of money or unaffordability of school fees. This was most worrisome in Mangwe (75%). • Another cause for concern was the drop out due to pregnancy (6.8%). The problem was most pronounced in Beitbridge (20%) and Bulilima (11%). • Matobo had a perculiar problem of children not attending school in order to do household work (16.7%). 36 Chronic Illnesses

37 Households with Members who had Confirmed Chronic Illness

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 8.8 9.2 9.5 9 8.6 8.2 10 6 6.3 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Approximately 8.2% of households in the province had members who had confirmed chronic conditions. • Gwanda district (9.5%) had the highest proportion whilst Beitbridge (6%) had the least.

38 Common Chronic Illnesses by District Hyperten sion, Diabetes, Arthritis, Ulcer, HIV/ Epilepsy, Heart Liver Kidney High high Asthma chronic Stroke chronic Tuberculosis Cancer District AIDS seizures, disease diseases diseases blood blood (%) body (%) stomach (%) (%) (%) fits (%) (%) (%) (%) pressure sugar (%) pain (%) pain (%) (%) Beitbridge 29.3 32.9 13.4 3.7 7.3 3.7 0 2.4 1.2 2.4 0 0 0

Bulilima 39.7 31.4 7.4 9.1 3.3 1.7 0.8 0.8 3.3 0 0.8 0.8 0

Mangwe 33.1 33.8 7.7 7.7 3.1 3.1 1.5 3.1 0 1.5 0.8 0 0

Gwanda 29 19.8 18.3 9.2 7.6 3.1 2.3 0.8 0.8 0 0 0 0.8

Insiza 40.5 14.9 4.1 6.8 9.5 6.8 2.7 2.7 4.1 2.7 0 1.4 0

Matobo 32.7 28.6 12.2 5.1 9.2 3.1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1

Umzingwane 57.4 15.8 9.9 5.9 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

Mat South 37 25.8 10.7 7.1 5.6 2.8 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3

• Almost 37% of households had at least one member who had HIV/AIDS whilst about 25.8% reported having a member with hypertension. • The prevalence of diabetes was highest in Gwanda district (18.3%) whilst cancer was high in both Matobo (1%) and Umzingwane (1%). 39 Forms of Support for People Living with HIV/AIDS

100 90

80 75 76.8 75.3

70 63.5 63.1 60 55.6 48.8 50 50 47.1 47.247.2 38.9 41.2 40 33.7 31.3 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 16.9 20 16.7 14.3 10 5.6 5.4 5.9 5.2 4.2 4.2 3.6 2.9 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.9 1.9 2 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

Food aid Cash transfer for care givers Counselling sessions/ home visits School support Vocational training

• The majority of households (63.5%) received counseling sessions/home visits as support for members living with HIV/AIDS.

40 Chronically Ill Persons Who Missed Medication

100

30 23.9

20 14.5

Proportion of household members (%) members household of Proportion 11.5 10.5 9.2 10 3.6 3.5 2.1 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• The proportion of chronically ill household members who missed their medication was 9.2%.

41 Reasons for Missing Medication

Failure to access the health facility for more medication 2.5

To avoid side effects 2.5

Failed to follow the instructions for taking the medicines 2.5

Lack of transport to go and collect the drugs 8.8

No money to pay for transport 10.0

Did not have the required currency to purchase 11.3

Medication too expensive so could not afford 60.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of Households (%)

• A significant proportion of those who reported to have missed a dose for chronic conditions were largely affected by a lack of financial resources to acquire the necessary medication (60%). • The other most reported reasons for missing a dose for other chronic conditions in Matabeleland South included not having the required currency to purchase the medication (11.3%) as well as lack of money to pay for transport (10%). 42 Social Protection

43 Households Which Received Any Form of Support

100 94 95 94 96 91 88 90 90 85 88 86 86 87 85 80 77 77 70 61 60 50 40 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South 2020 2021

• The proportion of households that received any form of support in the province decreased from 87% in 2020 to 85% in 2020. • However, in Gwanda there was an increase from 54% to 88% was reported in the same period.

44 Sources of Any Form of Support

Government UN/NGO Church Rural Urban Charitable Support Support Support Relatives Relatives Diaspora Groups District (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Beitbridge 45 29 5 15 80 19 9

Bulilima 57 11 1 16 5 36 13

Gwanda 56 20 1 27 25 30 1

Insiza 58 48 19 16 18 14 8

Mangwe 69 32 2 10 15 65 17

Matobo 44 57 13 16 11 4 4

Umzingwane 83 23 6 9 14 13 8

Mat South 59 32 7 16 15 22 7

• Government (59%) remains the main source of support for households in the province followed by UN agencies and NGO (32%). • Beitbridge had the highest proportion of households (80%) receiving support from urban relatives. • Mangwe received the highest proportion of households that received remittances from outside the country (65%).

45 Forms of Support from Government

Livestock Livestock Other Weather Covid-19 Crop support: WASH Food Cash support: livestock and related inputs Tick inputs Other (%) (%) pass-on support climate support (%) Grease( (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) District %)

Beitbridge 97.2 6.4 9.2 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0

Bulilima 93.8 1.4 17.4 0.7 6.3 0 0 0 0 0

Gwanda 93.1 2.8 15.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Insiza 89.2 5.8 10.1 0 3.6 0 3.6 0 0.7 0

Mangwe 93 2.3 11.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6

Matobo 99.1 0.9 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 99.5 4.4 10.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Umzingwane

Mat South 95 3.4 11.2 0.1 1.6 0 0.5 0 0.1 0.4

• Food (95 %) and crop inputs (11.2 %) remain the major form of support from Government. • Umzingwane had the highest proportion of households (99.5%) receiving support in the form of food.

46 Forms of Support from UN/NGO

Livestock Livestock Other Weather COVID-19 Crop WASH Food Cash support: support: livestock and related inputs inputs Other (%) (%) pass-on Tick support climate support (%) (%) District (%) grease(%) (%) (%) (%)

Beitbridge 81.2 30.4 17.4 0 0 1.4 2.9 0 0 2.9

Bulilima 88.9 0 11.1 0 0 0 3.7 0 0 0 Gwanda 98.1 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Insiza 83.6 12.1 10.3 1.7 4.3 1.7 20.7 0 3.4 0.9

Mangwe 86.4 9.9 13.6 0 0 0 22.2 0 22.2 1.2

Matobo 91 20.7 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7

Umzingwane 76.7 11.7 13.3 0 0 0 1.7 0 1.7 1.7

Mat South 86.6 14.5 8.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 8.3 0 4.2 1.1

• The majority (86.6%) of households in the province received support in the form of food aid. • Gwanda had the highest proportion of households (98.1%) receiving food assistance.

47 Support During Peak Hunger Period 100 90 82 80 70 67 56 58 60 55 54 53 49 48 50 45

40 34 34 30 27 30 24 18 17 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 12 14 15 8 10 10 7 5 0 Beitbrigde Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Gvt UN/NGO Both Govt&UN/NGO

• Matobo had the highest proportion of households being assisted by UN/NGOs (56%) during peak hunger period. • Government support was most dominant in Umzingwane (82%) and Beitbridge having the lowest proportion of 45% .

48 Agricultural Production

49 Crop Production

50 Cereal Stocks as at 1 April 2021

District Cereal stocks (kgs) • The average household cereal stocks as at 1 April for the province Beitbridge 21.9 were 18.4kg per household. Bulilima 7.1 • Mangwe had the highest average stocks (35.2kg) whilst Bulilima Mangwe 35.2 had the least (7.1kg). Gwanda 9.4 Insiza 25.3 Matobo 20.0 Umzingwane 18.5 Mat South 18.4

51 Maize from Casual Labour and Remittances

District Casual labour (Kg) Remittances (Kg) Beitbridge 11.0 1.7 Bulilima 2.6 0.2 Mangwe 2.1 0.0 Gwanda 7.3 0.1 Insiza 6.9 0.0 Matobo 1.9 0.0 Umzingwane 4.2 1.8 Mat South 4.1 0.1

• Beitbridge reported the highest maize quantity received through casual labour (11kg) while Matobo had the least (1.9%). • Umzingwane (1.8kg) and Beitbridge (1.7kg) had the highest maize stocks from remittances.

52 Households that Grew Various Crops Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Crop Mat South (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Maize 66 73 66 91 76 84 85 77

Sorghum 47 39 70 43 16 51 4 39

Finger millet 2 15 2 12 0 8 0 6

Pearl milllet 26 53 54 9 1 17 1 23

Tubers 1 18 7 15 12 1 24 11

Cowpeas 13 34 34 47 23 12 22 27

Groundnuts 20 40 47 63 24 23 27 35

Roundnuts 18 30 35 39 13 12 18 23

Sugar beans 5 2 19 4 5 1 14 7

Soya beans 2 0 9 1 2 0 3 2

• Maize (77%) was most grown crop in the province followed by sorghum (39%), groundnuts (35%), cowpeas (27%), pearl millet (23%) and round nuts (23%). • Pearl millet was commonly grown in Beitbridge (26%), Bulilima (53%) and Mangwe (54%).

53 Average Household Cereal Production

Months of cereal supply (%) Cereals in 0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 9 to 11 12 and Province kgs months months months months above Beitbridge 165.9 77.3 14.9 3.3 1.7 2.9 Bulilima 237.1 57.2 20.0 10.4 4.0 8.4 Mangwe 368.8 48.4 19.2 13.2 4.4 14.8 Gwanda 340.9 35.9 25.5 16.3 6.4 15.9 Insiza 553.2 42.0 12.7 7.8 7.3 30.2 Matobo 476.3 41.9 17.0 13.0 4.3 23.7 Umzingwane 377.8 48.2 18.4 11.4 2.9 19.2 Mat South 360.5 50 18 11 4 16 National 543.8 35 18 12 6 29

• The average household cereal production in the province was 360.5kg. • Insiza district reported the highest average household maize production of 553.2kg whilst Beitbridge reported the lowest at 165.9kg. • At provincial level, 50% of households produced enough cereal to last 0 to 3 months while 16% produced cereal supply for 12 months and

above. 54 Cereal Self Sufficiency

Number of months Districts

7- 9 Months Mangwe

9 – 12 Months Beitbridge

Over 12 months Bulilima, Gwanda, Insiza, Matobo, Umzingwane

• From the 2020/21 Second Round Crop and Livestock Assessment, 5 out of 7 districts in the province produced enough cereal to last over 12 months. • This means that factors that affect food access need to be addressed to ensure equitable distribution of cereal from districts with surplus to deficit areas.

55 Livestock

56 Households which Owned Cattle

100 13 90 19 18 18 20 20 16 18 2 2 7 80 3 4 7 4 5 4 7 11 8 10 70 8 12 8 13 10 8 9 60 10 3 14 10 50

40 70 65 62 30 56 60 60 51 53 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

zero one to two three to four five > five

• The proportion of households that did not own cattle remained high in Matabeleland South (60%). • The highest proportion of households that owned more than five (5) cattle was in Gwanda (20%) and Insiza (20%) and the lowest was in Umzingwane (13%).

57 Households that Owned Draught Cattle

100 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 2 3 5 4 4 7 4 8 8 90 11 8 9 13 80

50 95 91 90 92 85 88 40 83 76

30 Proportion of households (%) householdsof Proportion 20

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South zero one to two three to four five > five

• In Matabeleland South, the proportion of households that did not own draught cattle was 88%. • Beitbridge (95%) had the highest proportion of households that did not own draught power.

58 Households that Owned Goats

100 1 1 6 4 8 2 1 3 4 12 6 8 90 15 4 24 10 3 7 7 13 4 80 11 17 14 6 16 70 14 20 14 13 60 12

50 18 40 84 68 65 66 63 30 56 61 20 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 39 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South zero one to two three to four five > five

• The proportion of households that did not own goats in Matabeleland South was 63%. • Matobo (84%) and Umzingwane (68%) had the highest proportion of households that did not own goats. • The highest proportion of households that owned 5 or more goats was in Beitbridge (30%) and the lowest was in Umzingwane (2%).

59 Households which owned Poultry

100 91 90 84 80 76 71 68 70 66 60 60 53 50

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• The proportion of households that owned poultry in Matabeleland South was (71%). • Gwanda (91%) had the highest proportion of households with poultry.

60 Average Livestock Numbers per Household

20 18 16 14 12 12 9 9 9 10 8 9 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 7 6 5

6 5 Number of livestock livestock of Number 4 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Cattle owned Goats owned

• The average cattle herd size per household was 7, whilst the average goat flock size per household was 9. • Beitbridge had the highest average holding of cattle (8) and goats (12) per household. • Umzingwane (5) had the lowest average of cattle and goat holding per household.

61 Livestock Offtake Rates Cattle Goats 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50

40 40

Offtake (%) Offtake (%) Offtake 30 30 17 20 20 14 15 13 9.0 9.0 12 11 11 9 10 5.3 4.6 10 2.3 2.4 1.7 3.7 0 0

• Percentage offtake refers to the number of animals sold/slaughtered annually as a fraction of total herd. It is an indicator of the business approach in livestock production and its contribution to household livelihoods. • Offtake rates were generally low with a provincial average of 5% for cattle and 13% for goats. The target is to increase offtake to about 20% for cattle and 40% for goats.

• Insiza and Beitbridge had the highest cattle offtake (9%), while goat offtake was highest in Gwanda (13%). 62 Households that Reported Cattle Deaths and Causes of Mortality Households that reported cattle deaths Causes of Deaths 100 100 1 1 6 0 4 6 1 2 6 0 14 10 7 15 3 90 2 10 3 5 90 2 4 10 3 17 4 12 14 80 14 18 80 38 8 9 21 11 51 29 19 70 70 19 54 27 22 19 60 60 50 43 56 12 90 50 40 75 70 40 14 30 61 76 49 68 69 20 30 14 59 57 30 36 52 54 10 26 20 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 0 Proportion of Household (%) Householdof Proportion 10 23 0

Drought/Lack of water Diseases Predators Slaughter for own consumption zero one to two three to four five > five Floods/cyclone Other

• Approximately 43% of households in the province reported cattle deaths. • The majority of households (61%) indicated that the cause of cattle deaths was drought/water shortages. • Beitbridge (77%) had the highest proportion of households that experienced cattle deaths while Matobo had the least (24%).

63 Agricultural Extension Services

64 Agricultural Extension and Training

Households which Received Households which Received Agricultural Extension Services Agricultural Training

100 100 95 93 96 90 89 90 90 90 85 78 80 80 70 70 58 55 58 60 51 50 52 53 60 50 46 50 40 40 30 30 20 20

10 10 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0 (%) Households of Proportion 0

• Bulilima (46%) had the lowest proportion of households reached with agricultural extension support in Matabeleland South Province. • Access to agricultural training (90%) was generally high throughout the province. 65 Households which Received Agriculture Extension Visits

100 89 90 85 86 81 84 80 76 70 64 60 50 40 37 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Access to agricultural extension visits was generally high (76%) throughout the province with the exception of Bulilima (37%). • Umzingwane (89%), recorded the highest proportion of households that had received agricultural extension visits from Government Extension Officers and other Extension Officers. 66 Households which Received Cropping and Livestock Advice Households which Received Cropping Households which Received Livestock Advice Advice

100 100 89 89 91 90 84 83 85 85 90 83 80 80 72 71 69 71 69 70 70 66 66 60 60 50 50 40 40 33 30 30

20 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 10 0 0

• Approximately 85% of households in Matabeleland South received cropping advice while 66% received livestock advice from extension officers. 67 Households Satisfied with Livestock Advice Received 100 90 80 70 54

60 82 83 84 84 93 92 50 96 40 30

20 46 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 18 17 16 15 7 4 0 4 4 1 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Not Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied

• Of the 66% households that received livestock advice in Matabeleland South Province, 84% were satisfied whilst 15% were somewhat satisfied.

68 Households which Received Extension Support on January Disease

100 90 80 70 60 60 54 53 51 48 49 50 45 43 38 40 30 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

• Nationally about 49% of households that owned livestock had received extension support on Theileriosis (January disease). • Matabeleland South had the lowest proportion of households that received extension support on January Disease.

69 Households which Received Extension Support on Fall Army Worm

100 90 80 76 69 71 70 65 64 61 61 60 50 40 40 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• In the province, the proportion of households that were reached with extension support towards Fall Army Worm was 64%. • Gwanda (76%) and Insiza (71%) had the highest proportion of households reached. 70 Households which Received Extension Support on Weather and Climate

100 90 82 80 69 69 70 65 61 61 60 56 54 50 40 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Gwanda (82%) reported the highest proportion of households which received extension support on weather and climate, whilst Bulilima had the lowest at 54%. 71 Households with Access to Animal Health Centres Households with Access to Animal Satisfaction with Quality of Service Health Centres Received from the Animal Health Centres

100 100 91 95 95 90 82 81 90 77 79 80 80 70 70 65 64 62 60 54 60 51 50 53 50 43 50 40 41 40 40 30 23 21 17 20 13 30 8 5 4 5 3 20 10 2 1 1

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0

Not satisfied at all Somewhat satisfied Satisfied

• About 53% of the households with livestock in Matabeleland South had access to animal health centres. • Approximately, 81% of households that had accessed animal health centres were satisfied by the services rendered. 72 Households which Received Early Warning Information Households which Received Early Households which used Early Warning Warning Information Information to Plan Response Mechanisms 100 100 85 90 90 79 80 80 77 72 68 70 63 70 65 60 54 60 55 50 45 42 50 40 37 40 35 40 27 30 30 30 20 20

10 10 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0 0

• Bulilima district (27%) had the least proportion of households which reported to have received early warning informationsuch as weather, climate change and seasonal performance . • Of those households which received the early warning information in Matabeleland South, 68% reported to have used the information for planning response mechanisms. 73 Agricultural Produce Markets

74 District Cattle Prices (USD)

• Average cattle prices ranged from USD 280 to USD 402. • The highest average cattle prices were reported in Matobo (USD 402). • The lowest prices were reported in Beitbridge (USD 280).

75 District Goat Prices (USD)

• Goat prices ranged from USD 30 to USD 44. • The highest goat prices were reported in Mangwe (USD 44). • The lowest goat prices were reported in Beitbridge at (USD 30).

76 District Average Maize Grain Prices (USD)

• Average maize grain prices ranged from USD 8 to USD 10 per 20 litre bucket. These were the highest in the country. • The lowest maize grain prices were reported in Beitbridge and Bulilima USD 8/bucket. • The highest maize grain prices in the province were in Matobo at USD 10 per 20 litre Bucket. • Maize grain was not available on the market in Mangwe during the time of the survey.

77 District Maize Meal Prices (USD)

• Maize meal prices ranged from USD 3 to USD 11 per 10kg bag. • Highest price of Maize Meal was recorded in Umzingwane (USD 11). • Maize meal was not available on the market in Mangwe during the time of the survey.

78 Value Chain Practices

79 Households Market Information Access

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30.8 30 19.2 20 16.8 13.1 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 12 11.7 12.2 10.5 7.17.9 6.76.7 11.4 7.4 10 3.6 4.4 6.4 0.4 2.41.61.6 1.6 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Familiar Used Trained

• In the province, about 10.5% of the households indicated that they were aware of how to access market information through various channels. • About 6.4% of households reported that they had used the information they accessed while 7.4% reported that they received training on how to access market information 80 Access to Grain Storage Facility

100 90 80 69 70 60 51 50 40 38 30 32 32 32 30 19

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• In the province 38% of households reported that they had access to grain storage facility. • Mangwe (69%) had the highest proportion of households with access to a grain storage facility whilst Bulilima (19%) had the least.

81 Structures Used by Households to Store Grain

Traditional Ordinary Improved Ordinary room granary granary granary Bin/drum Crib Hermatic bags Metal silos Beitbridge 74 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 Bulilima 16 73 10 0 0 0 0 0 Mangwe 56 39 2 1 1 1 0 0 Gwanda 87 2 6 2 0 1 2 1 Insiza 17 53 22 6 3 0 0 0 Matobo 85 7 5 3 0 0 0 0 Umzingwane 50 26 13 1 5 5 0 0 Mat South 59 28 8 2 1 1 0 0 National 63 25 6 1 1 2 1 0

• The most commonly used grain storage structures in the province in rank order were ordinary room (59%), traditional granary (28%), ordinary granary (8%) and improved granary (2%).

82 Use of Improved Granary and Community Granaries

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 56 60 50 50 40 40 30 25 26 26 30 30 23 25 18 18 20 9 10 12 20 12 (%) Households of Proportion 8 10 10 10 2 4 3 5 2 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 5 5 6 7 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 0 0

Familiar with Community Granaries Familiar with Improved granary Used Improved Granary Use Community Granaries Trained on Improved Granary Training/orientation on Community Granaries

• About 25% of households were familiar with improved granaries, whilst 7% actually received training on improved granaries. • Furthermore, there was very low uptake (2%) of community granaries. • This could have a negative effect on post harvest management.

83 Post- Harvest Grain Storage Conditions

100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50

40 34 33 40 35 29 29 30 2224 24 24 24 30 22

20 14 13 14 20 15 13 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 9 9 1110 (%) Households of Proportion 10 11 7 8 7 6 10 3 3 4 5 10 5 3 4 6 6 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 3 2 0 0

Familiar with Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight box, metal Familiar with Store in bag with artificial chemicals at the household silo) Use Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight box, metal silo) Use Store in bag with artificial chemicals at the household Training/orientation on Temperature and humidity control (hermetic bag, air-tight Training/orientation on Store in bag with artificial chemicals at the household box, metal silo)

• About 29% of households were familiar with storing their grain in bags and using grain protectants • Furthermore, 6% of households were using temperature and air control in grain protection (use of hermetic bags, metal silos, air-tight boxes) 84 Household Ownership of Infrastructure that Enhances Food and Nutrition Security

Solar Farming powered Nutrition Agro- Irrigation equipment Fowl runs water Borehole Storage Beehives gardening forestry (%) (%) (%) source (%) (%) facility (%) Savings (%) (%) (%) (%) Other (%) Beitbridge 7.1 25.2 38.5 2.7 8.0 20.8 3.5 0.9 35.8 0.9 23.0 Bulilima 0.9 42.0 17.0 0.9 2.2 1.8 0.9 0.0 14.7 0.0 26.8 Gwanda 13.4 22.7 35.2 19.4 10.1 5.3 5.7 0.4 63.2 0.4 10.9 Insiza 14.5 28.0 21.0 7.5 7.5 19.4 2.7 0.0 16.1 0.0 21.0 Mangwe 4.0 52.6 1.2 0.8 0.0 46.6 4.4 0.0 31.7 0.4 4.0 Matobo 2.9 25.5 44.4 0.8 1.6 10.7 4.5 0.0 19.8 0.0 32.5 Umzingwane 4.7 6.4 12.8 0.0 0.4 20.9 5.5 0.0 35.3 0.4 41.3 Mat South 6.6 29.0 24.3 4.6 4.2 18.1 4.0 0.2 31.7 0.3 22.6 National 5.7 23.7 29.9 2.1 3.7 14.1 6.1 1.2 36.0 0.9 21.9

• Food and Nutrition Security infrastructure is important in ensuring farming households enhance their ability to produce, store and utilise food. • Insiza had the highest proportion of households which reported to have irrigation infrastructure (14.5%), whilst Gwanda report the highest proportion of households with a nutrition garden (63.2%). 85 Climate Smart Agriculture

86 Households with Knowledge of Pfumvudza/Intwasa

100 90 80 74 75 71 70 67 64 61 60 55 51 47 49 50 43 46 39 39 40 37 36 37 33 31 28 27 30 24 24 20 16 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Pfumvudza Households which Practised Pfumvudza Households Trained on Pfumvdza

• In the province, 64% of households were familiar with Pfumvudza/Intwasa, 31% had practiced it and 39% had received training. • Gwanda (43%) had the highest proportion of households which practiced Pfumvudza/Intwasa while Beitbridge (16%) had the lowest.

87 Households Using Quality Certified Seeds 100 90 79 80 68 69 69 70 63 60 58 51 48 51 50 47 42 42 39 40 38 31 32 34 28 29 30 30 22 16 18 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 14 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Certified Seed Households which used Certified Seed Households Trained on Certified Seed

• About 39% of households in the province reported that they used certified seed. • Gwanda (63%) had the highest proportion of households that were using certified seed.

88 Households Using Community Seed Banks

100

30 27

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 12 11 11 11 9 10 7 8 8 4 3 3 3 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Seed Banks Households which used Seed Banks Households Trained on Seed Banks

• All districts had low usage of community seed banks with the provincial average at 3%. • Insiza District had the highest number of households which were familiar with seed banks (27%) and the most households which used seed banks (11%) 89 Households Adapting to Suitable Improved Varieties

100 90 82 80 70 61 60 50 48 50 40 40 40 32 35 28 28 29 27 30 22 25 23 18 21 20 21 20 17 14 14 14 9

10 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Improved Varieties Households which used Improved Varieties Households Trained on Improved Varieties

• In the province, 27% of households made use of suitable improved varieties with the highest proportion of households reported in Gwanda (61%).

90 Households Growing Small Grains

100 88 90 78 78 80 72 74 72 70 65 60 59 60 57 53 51 50 47 46 40 42 39 37 40 34 33 35 30 30 20 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 9 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Familiar with Small Grains Households which Grew Small Grains Households Trained on Small Grains

• About 46% of households in the province grew small grains. • Bulilima (65%) had highest proportion of households growing small grains while Umzingwane (9%) had the least.

91 Households Engaging in Crop rotation

100 90 86 80 69 70 59 58 60 54 48 48 51 50 44 46 39 39 39 35 35 35 40 34 31 30 25 24 22 22 18 18 20

10 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Crop Rotation Households which Practised Crop Rotation Households Trained on Crop Rotation

• Crop rotation was practiced by 34% of households across the province. • Gwanda (48%) had the highest proportion of households practicing crop rotation with the lowest being Umzingwane (18%).

92 Households Using Compost

100 90 78 80 70 61 60 51 51 51 50 46 42 43 39 41 39 40 33 32 31 27 26 27 30 23 25 20 18 17

20 14 16 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Compost Households which used Compost Households Trained on Compost

• Approximately 31% of households in the province used compost. • The use of compost was highest in Gwanda (43%) and lowest in Mangwe (17%).

93 Households Using Drip Irrigation

100 90 80 77 70 60

50 43 40 27 30 30 24 20 20 18 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 12 12 14 9 7 9 8 10 6 5 4 4 5 2 1 1 1 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Drip Irrigation Households Using Drip Irrigation Households Trained on Drip Irrigation

• The use of drip irrigation was low across all districts at 5%. • Gwanda had the greatest number of households familiar with drip irrigation at 77%.

94 Households Practicing Proper Plant Spacing

100 90 80 70 62 60 50

40 35 29 30 27 20 19 20

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 13 11 11 11 9 7 9 9 10 4 4 5 5 4 0 2 3 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with proper spacing Households which practised proper spacing Households Trained on spacing

• Approximately 11% of households in the province used appropriate plant spacing. • Gwanda had the most households that were familiar with proper spacing (62%) and households that practiced proper spacing (35%).

95 Households Practicing Intercropping

100 90 82 80

70 63 60 58 60 53 50 47 42 40 40 38 40 36 36 34 33 31 31 26 30 23 24 23 19 16 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 13 14 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Intercropping Households which practised Intercropping Households Trained on Intrecropping

• Intercropping was practiced by 31% of households in the province. • Gwanda (47%) had the highest number of households practicing intercropping while Matobo (14%) had the lowest.

96 Households Practicing Cover Cropping 100 90 80 70 60 50 41 40 34 28 27 29 30 24 23 18 20 19

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 16 16 12 13 12 13 12 10 6 5 7 6 5 2 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Cover Cropping Households which practised Cover Cropping Households Trained on Cover Cropping

• Cover cropping was practiced by 13% of households in the province. • Gwanda (27%) had the highest number of households practicing cover-cropping with the least being Mangwe (2%).

97 Households which Practise Use of Mulching

100

90 86

80 73 71 70 68 66 66

60 55

50 45 40 40 34 36 29 30 30 27 28 27 28 22 24 24 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 18 12 9 10

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with Mulching Households which practised Mulching Households Trained on Mulching

• At least 24% of households practiced use of mulching in the province. • Umzingwane (30%) had the highest proportion of households using mulch with the lowest being Beitbridge (9%).

98 Households Practicing Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

100 90 80 70 60 50 47 48 38 40 34 32 29 28 29 28 30 27 24 22 20 20 19 20 17 16

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20 12 10 10 6 3 2 3 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Households Familiar with IPM Households whichpractised IPM Households Trained on IPM

• The use of integrated pest management practices was 19% in the province with the highest usage reported in Insiza (34%).

99 Households Using Contour Ridges

90 82 80 70 61 60 55 50 47 46 47 40 36 33 32 34 29 30 25 24 20 19 19 20 17 15 12 11

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 8 10 6 3 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Familiar with contour ridges Use of contour ridges/Contour planting Training/orientation on Use of contour ridges/Contour planting

• Bulilima had the lowest number of households using of contour ridges (3%) • Insiza had the highest number of households using contour ridges at 33%. 100 Households Planting Fodder Trees

100

19 18 20 13 11 11 13 12 6 6 9 8 4 2 4 5 2 3 3 3 5 2 3 4 5 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Familiar with Planting of fodder trees (e.g., Moringa, Leucaena) Planting of fodder trees (e.g., Moringa, Leucaena) Training/orientation on Planting of fodder trees (e.g., Moringa, Leucaena)

• Planting of fodder trees was low in the province (4%). • Insiza (11%) had the highest proportion of households planting fodder.

101 Households Engaging in Watershed Management

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 30 18 19 20 16 15 16 11 14 12 13

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 8 9 8 8 10 7 5 5 3 1 0 1 2 2 3 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Familiar with Management or protection of the watershed (e.g vertiva, sisals, star grasses) Use Management or protection of the watershed (e.g. vertiva, sisals, star grasses, gulley reclamation, fodder trees) Training/orientation on Management or protection of the watershed (e.g. vertiva, sisals, star grasses, gulley reclamation)

• The highest proportion of households engaging in watershed management was reported in Gwanda and Insiza districts at 16%, respectively. 102 Households Sustainably Harvesting Forest Products

100 90 80 70 60 50 48 45 37 40 32 30 25 25 21 19 16 16 15 20 13 12 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 8 8 9 9 9 10 6 0 1 3 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Familiar with Sustainable harvesting of forest products (e.g. NTFPS, marula, baobab, mopane worms, honey, etc.) Use Sustainable harvesting of forest products (e.g. NTFPS, marula, baobab, mopane worms, honey, etc.) Training/orientation on Sustainable harvesting of forest products (e.g. NTFPS, marula, baobab, mopane worms, honey, etc.)

• Beitbridge (48%) had the highest proportion of households that were familiar with sustainable harvesting of forest products followed by Gwanda at 45%. 103 Irrigation

104 Proportion of Communities with Irrigation Schemes

100 90 80 70 60 49 50 40 35 36 27 30 22 25 18 21 20 16 10 Proportion of Communities (%) Communities of Proportion 0 Manicaland Mash Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National Central

• Generally, there were few communities with irrigation schemes (27%) across the country.

• However almost half (49%) of communities in Matabeleland South had irrigation schemes, which was the highest across the country followed by Masvingo and Manicaland which reported 36% and 35%, respectively.

105 Functionality of Irrigation Schemes

300 273

250

200 182 169 148 150 94 100 57 58 40 50 34 24

Number of Irrigation Schemes Irrigation of Number 16 18 17 15 2 4 4 2 7 4 1 5 10 1 2 9 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National Functional Partially Functional Non-functional

• In Matabeleland South, 17 Irrigation schemes were fully functional, 57 were partially functional and 58 were reported non-functional.

106 Crops Grown in Irrigation Schemes

Sorghum 0 2 Other tubers 1 2 Irish potato 2 5 Sweet potato 4 Orange fleshed fruits (vitamin A rich) 4 5 Other legumes 2 5 Other fruits 2 5 7 Orange fleshed vegetables (vitamin A rich) 7 Other vegetables 9 14 Green leafy vegetables 14 17 20 Sugar beans 20 Maize 22 32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Partiarly functional Irrigation Schemes Functional Irrigation Schemes

• Maize was the most grown crop followed by sugar beans and vegetables.

• The least grown crops were tubers. 107 Reasons for Partially Functioning Irrigation Schemes

Dam/Weir not big enough 2 Electricity cut due to unpaid bills 2 Infrastructure or equipment not yet installed 4 Theft of produce 4 Unavailability of inputs at the market 4 Cannot afford inputs 6 Dam/Weir silted 6 Poor leadership 6 Lack of capital 8 Vandalism 8 In-field works need rehabilitation/maintenance 12 No electricity/transformer broken down or other fault 12 Seasonality of water source 12 Pumping unit broken down 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of Irrigation Schemes (%)

• Of those schemes that were reported as partially functioning, a larger proportion had broken down pumping units (16%).

108 Reasons for Non-Functional Irrigation Schemes

Unavailability of inputs at the market 1 Theft of produce 1 Dam/Weir not big enough 3 Seasonality of water source 3 Infrastructure or equipment not yet installed 4 Dam/Weir silted 4 Cannot afford inputs 6 Fencing broken down 6 Electricity cut due to unpaid bills 6 Poor leadership 6 Vandalism 7 Lack of capital 7 No electricity/transformer broken down or other fault 10 In-field works need rehabilitation/maintenance 16 Pumping unit broken down 19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of Irrigation Schemes (%)

• The major reasons for non-functionality included broken down pumping units (19%), outstanding in-field maintenance (16%) and electrical faults/broken down transformers (10%). 109 Income and Expenditure

110 Current Most Important Source of Income

Cash crop production 1 Other 1 Own business 1 Non-state social transfers 1 Government social transfers 3 Petty trade 4 Pension 4 Skilled trade/artisan 5 Food crop production/sales 5 Small scale mining/mineral sales 6 Livestock production/sales 6 Formal salary/wages 6 Vegetables production/sales 7 Remittance within 8 Casual labour 17 Remittances outside 20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of Households (%)

• Most households continue to rely on remittances from outside (20%) as the most important source of income, followed by casual labour (17%), remittances within (8%) and vegetable production/sale (7%) were the top 5 main income sources. 111 Average Household Monthly Income (USD) for April 2021

180 158 160 155

140 119 120 106 100 100 85 80 USD 80 59 57 60 46 45 44 46 39 41 40 36

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South 2020 2021

• Average monthly income for April 2021 was estimated to be at USD106.

112 Average Household Monthly Expenditure (USD) for April 2021

100 90 86 80 70 60 50 46 45 44

USD 42 40 37 31 34 30 27 23 22 22 19 20 20 15 17 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South 2020 2021

• Average expenditure for the month of April was USD 44. • Bulilima reported the lowest expenditure. 113 Food Expenditure

80 72 70 65 65 63 65 63 65 62 62 62 61 60 58 60 58 52 51 50

20 Proportion of Expenditure (%) Expenditure of Proportion 10

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South 2020 2021

• The proportion of food expenditure was 58%; a decrease from 65% reported in 2020. • This implies that households had less to spend on other essential services such as health and education.

114 Average Household 6 Month Expenditure 40

30 28

20 18 USD

10 8 5 5 3 3 3 3

0 Education Agriculture Other Construction Business Medical Social Taxes expenses

• The highest expenditure in Matabeleland South was on Education (USD28).

115 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

116 Ladder for Drinking Water Services Service Level Definition Safely Managed Drinking water from an improved water source that is located on premises, available when needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination. Basic Drinking Water Basic drinking water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing.

Limited Drinking Water Services Limited water services are defined as drinking water from an improved source, where collection time exceeds 30 minutes for a roundtrip including queuing. Unimproved Water Sources Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring.

Surface Water Sources Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal or irrigation channel.

Note : “Improved” drinking water sources are further deﬁned by the quality of the water they produce, and are protected from faecal contamination by the nature of their construction or through an intervention to protect from outside contamination. Such sources include: piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard; public tap/standpipe; tube well/borehole; protected dug well; protected spring; or rainwater collection. This category now includes packaged and delivered water, considering that both can potentially deliver safe water.

117 Access to Improved Water

100

90 83 84 80 77 73 71 70 70 67 62 60

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• The proportion of households in Matabeleland South with access to improved water was 73%. • Umzingwane (84%) had the highest while Gwanda (62%) had the least.

118 Access to Adequate Domestic Water

100 96 97 95 94 96 94 94 97 96 95 100 99 98 97 94 95 95 94 94 94 92 93 92 90 89 87 87 87 90 84 85 81 84 80

30 Proportion of Households(%)of Proportion 20

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Drinking Needs Cooking Needs Personal Hygiene Needs Other Domestic Needs

• The majority households in Matabeleland South reported having adequate water for cooking (94%), drinking (92%), personal hygiene (93%) and other domestic needs (92%). 119 Main Drinking Water Services

100 2 10 10 12 14 90 13 16 7 28 33 80 19 9 20 11 18 70 27 2 5 9 25 21 60 20 28 50 21

40 66 30 59 56 52 52 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 50 20 43 41

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Basic water services Limited water services Unimproved water services Surface water services

• The proportion of households accessing basic water services in Matabeleland South province was 52%. • Gwanda (33%) had the highest proportion of households using surface water services. • Insiza ( 20%) has the highest proportion of households using unimproved water sources. 120 Distance travelled to Main Water Source

100 13 12 90 22 26 26 35 80 39 36

70 39 42 60 40 27 36 50 29 37 37 40

Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 47 50 20 44 38 35 38 28 10 24

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Less than 500m More than 500m but less than 1 km 1km and above

• In Matabeleland South, 38% of households reported that they travelled a distance of less than 500m to get to a water source. • Bulilima( 39%) had the highest proportion of households travelling a kilometre and more to get to a water source.

121 Fetching Water for Cooking and Drinking

100 89 90 87

80 77 76 71 72 72 70 62 60

40 36

30 25 26 22 21 22 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 11 11 10 3 4 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Adult woman [15 years and above] Adult man [15 years and above] Female child [under 15 years] Male child [under 15 years]

• The role of fetching water in Matabeleland South province was mainly performed by adult women (76%). • Beitbridge (89%) had the highest proportion of households with adult women (15 years and above) performing the role of fetching water for cooking and drinking.

122 Time Spent Queuing at Water Source and Violence at Water Source

Time spent at water source Violence at Water Source 100 100 86 90 90 80 80 70 62 62 60 56 57 70 50 50 46 60 40 35 32 29 50 30 28 23 24 23 22 22 23 40 20 16 16 15 10 12 6 8 6 8 6 5 30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 10 42 2 5

0 20 Proportion of Households (%) (%) Householdsof Proportion 10 5.0 4.0 2.9 0.4 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.4 0

Less than 15minutes (or within premises) 15- 30 minutes 30 minutes - 1 hour

• The proportion of households spending less than 15 minutes queuing at a water source or within premises was 57%. • Insiza (5%) recorded the highest proportion of households reporting violence at a water source. 123 State of Major Dams as at 17 May 2021

Dam Name Full Supply Capacity Current Capacity % Full (millions of cubic metres) (millions of cubic metres) Kariba 64800.00 33168.3 51.2 Tugwi- Mukosi 1802.6 1809.1 100.4 Mutirikwi 1378.08 1348.9 97.9 Manyame 480.23 368.01 76.6 Osborne 401.64 260.7 64.9 Mazvikadei 343.815 253.8 73.8 Manyuchi 309.06 275.1 89.0 Manjirenji 274.17 267.7 97.6 Sebakwe 265.733 265.7 100.0 Chivero 247.18 243.4 98.5 Insiza 173.49 138.1 79.6 Zhove 130.46 122.9 94.2 Siya 105.45 105.2 99.8 Inyankuni 74.52 44.5 59.7 Arcadia 55.29 55.6 100.6 Mtshabezi 51.99 37.1 71.4 Upper Ncema 43.17 24.0 55.6 Mzingwane 42.17 13.2 31.3 Mazowe 39.357 14.0 35.6 Bubi Lupane 39.09 35.9 91.8 Silabuhwa 23.22 20.18 86.9 Mwenje 36.11 36.3 100.5 Masembura 25.77 25,7 99.7 Lower Ncema 14.87 11.0 74.0 Harava 9.026 8.8 97.5 Upper Insiza 7.81 6.8 87.1 Seke 3.38 1.8 52.3

• The majority of the dams except for Mazowe (35.6%) and Mzingwane (31.3%) were above fifty percent capacity. 124 Ladder for Sanitation

Service level Definition Safely Managed Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite. Basic Sanitation Use of improved facilities which are not shared with other households. Facilities

Limited Sanitation Use of improved facilities shared between two or more households. Facilities

Unimproved Sanitation Facilities that do not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. Facilities Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines and bucket latrines.

Open Defecation Disposal of human faeces in fields, forest, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or with solid waste. Note: Improved sanitation facilities: Facilities that ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. They include ﬂush or pour ﬂush toilet/latrine, Blair ventilated improved pit (BVIP), pit latrine with slab and upgradeable Blair latrine.

125 Access to Improved Sanitation

100

80 48.8 70 55.9 63.2 61 64.4 64.4 74 60 82.9 50 7.9 40 4.1 2.4 1.6 1.2 2.6 30

Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 0.8 20 43.4 40 35.2 0.4 36.6 34.4 33 25.2 10 16.7 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Open defecation Unimproved Improved

• In Matabeleland South, 64.4% of households had access to improved sanitation facilities. • Beitbridge (43.4%) had the highest proportion of households practising open defaecation. 126 Ladder for Hygiene

Service level Definition

Basic Availability of a handwashing facility on premises with soap and water.

Limited Availability of a handwashing facility on premises without soap and water.

No Facility No hand washing facility on premises.

Note: handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps, tippy taps, and jugs or basins designated for hand washing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap, powdered detergents and soapy water but does not include sand, soil, ash and other handwashing agents.

127 Access to Hand Washing Facilities

100 3.2 4 4.8 0.4 6.3 10.1 14 10.4 90 0.1 27.6 80

50 96 95.2 96.4 93.7 86 89.6 89.9 40 72.4

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South No service Limited Basic

• The majority of households in the province (89.9%) had no handwashing facilities. • Umzingwane (27.6%) had the greatest proportion of households that had basic handwashing facilities.

128 Food Safety

129 Considerations when Purchasing Food 100 95

80 78 72 73 73 69 70 62 60 48 50 44 43 38 39 39 40 36 34 30 26

Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 20 20 17 20 14 11 10 10 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Gwanda Insiza Mangwe Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Brand/source Expiry /Best before date Nutritional content Other

• In the province, 69% of households reported considering the expiry date when purchasing food for their families. • Gwanda and Insiza (20%), had the greatest proportion of households which considered nutritional content when purchasing food.

130 Ways to Keep Food Safe

100 92 89 90 85 86 78 80 73 70 63 61 60 60 58 60 53 51 50 48 47 41 36 37 36 36 40 33 35 30 20 18 13 9 10 2 2 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 0 0 2 2 1 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Gwanda Insiza Mangwe Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Proper storage of food at correct temperatures Avoid contamination of cooked food by keeping it closed Keeping cooked food separate from raw food Other

• Keeping food closed to avoid contamination (78%) was the frequently mentioned method of keeping food safe.

131 Safe Preparation of Food

100 93 90 86 84 82 82 81 79 80 77 77

70 67 66 64 65 63 62 62 63 61 60 58 60 56 50 50 43 42 40

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 9 10 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Gwanda Insiza Mangwe Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Use of safe water for preparation/ cooking Washing of hands with soap before preparation and serving of food Washing food utensils thoroughly with safe water and soap Do nothing

• At provincial level 79% of households reported that washing hands with soap before preparation and serving of food was important in safe food preparation. 132 • Only 2% of households reported that they did nothing to ensure food safety during preparation of food. Household Food Safety During COVID-19 Lockdown Period 100 100

90 85 84 80 76 68 70 67 66

60 57

50 46 38 39 40 35 36

Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 20 15

10 0 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Gwanda Insiza Mangwe Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Buying perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far Eating food undergoing spoilage

• Gwanda (100%) had the highest proportion of Households which bought perishables in bulk as formal shops were too far during the January to March 2021 national lockdown. • At provincial level 39% of the households had to eat food undergoing spoilage during the lockdown period. 133 Purchase of Expired or Spoiled Food

100

60 82.2 83.2 87.3 94.3 90 90.7 50 99.5 96.3

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20

10 17.8 16.8 12.7 5.7 10 9.3 0 0.5 3.7 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Yes No

• Beitbridge (17.8%) had the greatest proportion of households which purchased expired or food undergoing spoilage due to its reduced price. • The majority (90.7%) of households in the province did not purchase expired or food undergoing spoilage due to reduced prices.

134 Information on Food Safety

100

60 78 84.6 94.4 91.2 93.8 92.4 90.1 50 96

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20

10 22 15.4 5.6 8.8 6.2 7.6 9.9 0 4 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Yes No

• In the previous twelve months (April 2020 to May 2021), only 9.9% of the households received information on food safety issues.

• Umzingwane (22%), had the greatest proportion of households which received information on food safety issues.

135 Access to Infrastructure and Services

136 Households with Police Services Reachable within One Hour

100 90 80 70 65 59 60 60 48 49 50 42 40 40 30 28

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Approximately 49% of households in Matabeleland South reported that they had police services reachable within one hour.

137 Access to Victim Friendly Services

100 90 80 70 61 60 50 50 41 39 39 40 28 30 28 26

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Approximately 39% of households in the province reported that they could access to victim friendly services.

138 Approximate Distance of the Nearest Primary School

100 90 85 80 75 71 70 68 65 70 62 64 60 50 40 33 33 29 31 26 30 21 18 20 14

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 7 7 7 10 3 2 2 2 4 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km

• About 70% of households in Matabeleland South reported to have access to a primary school within a distance of less than 5km. • About 4% of households reported travelling over 10km to access the nearest primary school.

139 Household Access to Health Related Information

100 95 90 87 90 85 84 81 80 77 72 70 60 50 40 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Approximately 84% of households in Matabeleland South had access to health related information.

140 Access to the Services of a Village Health Worker

100 97 98 92 88 90 84 83 86 80 78 70 60 50 40 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Approximately 88% of households in the province had access to the services of a village health worker. • Gwanda (98%) had the highest proportion of households that had access to a village health worker.

141 Approximate Distance to the Nearest Health Facility/Clinic

100 90 80 70 60 54 55 55 51 51 50 50 45 45 45 40 39 40 36 36 31 32 30 25 20 23 20 14 14 14 10 10 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 4 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Less than 5km 5 to 10km More than 10km

• About 50% of households in the province reported that they had access to a health facility within a distance of less than 5km. • Close to 14% of the households reported that they were travelling over 10km to access a health facility.

142 Households with Members who Received Information on Public Health Diseases Listeria District Rabies (%) Anthrax (%) Cholera (%) Typhoid (%) Dysentery (%) Salmonella (%) (%) Beitbridge 51.9 31.0 75.9 23.5 13.9 4.8 4.3 Bulilima 34.0 22.5 81.2 29.3 34.6 1.6 1.0 Gwanda 62.5 59.7 88.4 5.1 5.1 0.5 0.5 Insiza 80.1 68.3 61.5 24.4 30.8 2.3 1.4 Mangwe 72.2 58.1 67.8 7.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Matobo 47.9 35.4 85.0 32.9 25.4 1.7 0.4 Umzingwane 77.9 50.9 50.3 16.6 11.7 3.7 1.2 Mat South 60.9 47.1 73.6 19.9 17.9 1.9 1.2 National 47.8 40.3 72.7 33.4 21.7 3.1 1.3

• Approximately 73.6% of households in Matabeleland South reported that they had received information on Cholera, 60.9% on Rabies, 47.1% on Anthrax, 19.9% on Typhoid and 17.9% on Dysentery. 143 Sources of Information on Gender Based Violence

Other Friends household Social Internet Government Health Health and Radio member Television Newspaper media browsing Extension workers Promoters relatives UN/NGOs Police District (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Worker (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Other (%) Beitbridge 48.5 6.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 26.3 32.3 16.2 15.2 14.1 20.2 6.1 Bulilima 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 13.0 68.5 43.5 2.2 5.4 3.3 2.2 Gwanda 53.7 38.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 34.3 4.5 9.0 9.0 10.4 6.7 Insiza 77.8 16.7 14.4 28.9 17.8 4.4 23.3 17.8 11.1 15.6 13.3 8.9 1.1 Mangwe 35.8 15.7 6.0 8.2 19.4 1.5 45.5 66.4 44.8 18.7 18.7 78.4 1.5 Matobo 78.6 14.3 0.9 3.6 17.9 1.8 55.4 30.4 15.2 21.4 9.8 27.7 1.8 Umzingwane 66.4 9.0 6.6 2.5 4.9 0.8 22.1 46.7 6.6 17.2 11.5 22.1 4.9 Mat South 52.2 15.6 3.8 5.6 9.1 1.1 30.7 43.0 20.1 14.4 11.9 26.6 3.6 National 65.7 12.5 4.7 2.7 7.5 0.7 22.8 28.2 13.4 11.9 8.6 21.3 4.9

• In the province the majority of households (52.2%) relied on radio as the main source of information on Gender Based Violence.

144 ISALS and Loans

145 Household Sources of Loans

Micro finance institution 2

Local trader/ shopkeeper 2

Banks 7

Friend/relative 18

ISAL/Mukando/Ukuqogelela 75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of Households (%)

• Approximately 3% of households in the province reported having accessed a loan. • Of these, 75% got their loans through ISALs/Mukando/Ukuqogelela.

146 Type of Loan and Primary Use of the Loan Type of Loan Primary Use of the Loan 100 100 93 90 90 80 80 70 60 70 50 47 40 33 60 30 16 50 20 14 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 10 2 2 40 0

30 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 9 10

0 Cash Other

• Most households in Matabeleland South received loans in the form of cash (93%) and they were mostly used for income generating activities (47%). 147 Households with a Member in an ISAL group

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 17 16 18 15 20 13 13 15 14 13 13 12 14 8 10 9

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 5 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South 2020 2021

• About 14% of households in Matabeleland South reported to be a member of Income Savings and Lending (ISAL) group an increase from 12% reported last year 2020. • There was a general increase in the proportion of households with a member in an ISAL group.

148 Households’ Use of Share –out from the ISAL Group

100 90 80 70 60 50 41 40 35 30

20 15 15 14 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 7 6 10 3 0 Food Household Education Financing Livestock Agricultural Buying Health costs utensils Income purchase inputs and construction generating equipment materials projects

• About 41% of households in ISAL Group used their share out to buy household utensils and 35% to buy food. 149 Household Consumption Patterns

150 Household Hunger Scale

100 3 2 1 1 2 3 10 12 13 7 9 90 20 80 70 60 50 98 97 87 87 92 90 90 40 77 30 20

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Little to no hunger Moderate hunger Severe hunger

• Most households within the province experienced little to no hunger (90%). • Mangwe District recorded the highest proportion of households who experienced little to no hunger (98%).

151 Food Consumption Score

152 Food Consumption Score

Food Consumption Score Description Score Groups

POOR 0-21 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 5-6 days, sugar 3-4 days, oil/fat 1 day a week, while animal proteins are totally absent

BORDERLINE 21.5-35 An expected consumption of staple 7 days, vegetables 6-7 days, sugar 3-4 days, oil/fat 3 days, meat/fish/egg/pulses 1-2 days a week, while dairy products are totally absent

ACCEPTABLE >35 As defined for the borderline group with more number of days a week eating meat, fish, egg, oil, and complemented by other foods such as pulses, fruits, milk

153 Food Consumption Patterns

100 90 80 70 60 60 60 55 50 48 43 43 42 38 40 37 31 33 31 27 27 30 26 25 23 24 25 25 21 19 17 16

Proportion of households(%) of Proportion 20 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South poor borderline acceptable

• In the province, 42% of households had poor food consumption score. • Beitbridge and Matobo had the highest proportions at 60% of households with poor consumption. • Gwanda had the highest proportion of households with acceptable diets at 55%. 154 Poor Food Consumption Patterns by District

• Beitbridge (60%) and Matobo (60%) had the highest proportion of households consuming poor diets in Matabeleland South province.

155 Food Consumption Score - Nutrition

156 Household Consumption of Protein, Iron and Vitamin A Rich Foods 100 93.4 94.3 93.5 90 84.9 83.3 80.0 79.3 81.2 80 72.8 74.3 68.8 69.0 68.0 70 62.2 60.7 58.1 60 54.4 50.4 51.2 49.1 50 45.5 45.7 37.9 40 29.2 30

20 Proportion of households(%) of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Iron-rich Food Protein-rich Foods Vitamin A-rich Foods

• About 49% of households in Matabeleland South consumed iron-rich foods seven days prior to the survey. • Furthermore, 68% consumed Protein rich foods while 81% consumed Vitamin A rich foods. • Mangwe had the lowest proportion of households consuming Iron rich foods (29%), protein rich foods (51%) and Vitamin A rich foods (54%).

157 Minimum Dietary Diversity-Women of Child Bearing Age

158 Minimum Dietary Diversity of Women of Child Bearing Age 100 90 80 70 60 55 50 40 28 28 27 30 23 25 23

Proportion of women (%) women of Proportion 20 10 6 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• About 27% of women of child bearing age (WCBA) consumed a Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD) 24-hours prior to the survey. • Insiza (55%) had the highest number of WCBA consuming a minimum dietary diversity while Bulilima (6%) had the lowest

159 The Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

• Households engage in various methods of coping when faced with food access challenges. The household consumption strategies are food

consumption behaviours that households adopt when faced with challenges in accessing food.

• The Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) considers both the frequency and severity of pre-selected coping strategies that a household used in the seven days prior to the survey. Reduced coping strategies index can be classified into three categories depending on the severity as shown below.

Low or no coping (CSI 0-3) Medium Coping (CSI 4-9) High Coping (CSI ≥10)

160 Household Reduced Consumption Coping Strategy Index (rCSI) 100 90 81 80 70 56 60 52 49 50 44 44 46 38 40 35 35 31 30 32 30 26 25 26 26 24 22 21 18 19 20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 9 10 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South No or low coping (CSI= 0-3) Medium (CSI = 4-9) High coping (CSI ≥10)

• Beitbridge (81%) and Matobo (56%) had the highest proportion of households adopting high consumption based coping.

• Gwanda (44%) had the highest proportion of households adopting low or no coping. 161 Household Consumption Coping Strategy Index (CSI)

50 44 45 40 35 30

25 Average CSI Average 20 15 13 13 15 11 11 11 10 5 5 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• In Matabeleland South the mean Coping Strategy Index was 15.

• Beitbridge reported the highest CSI at 44 while Gwanda had the lowest.

• Adoption of high coping by households is an indication that households could have been facing challenges in accessing food.

162 Household Consumption Coping Strategies

Send household members to eat elsewhere 4 Send household members to beg 5 Gather/hunt unusual types or amounts of wild food 7 Harvest immature crops 8 Skip entire days without eating 12 Purchase/borrow food on credit 16 Reduce adult consumption so children can eat 16 Rely on casual labour for food 18 Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives 28 Limit/reduce portion size at mealtimes 31 Reduce number of meals eaten per day 32 Rely on less expensive or less preferred foods 38 0 20 40 60 80 100 Proportion of households (%)

• The main consumption strategies adopted by households from Matabeleland South when faced with challenges to access food included; relying on less expensive foods (38%), reducing the number of meals consumed per day (32%) and reducing meal portion size (31%).

• The adoption of these strategies contributes negatively to nutrition outcomes.

163 Households Livelihood Coping Strategies

• Livelihood Coping Strategies are behaviours employed by households when faced crisis and measures longer-term coping capacity of households. • The livelihoods Coping strategies have been classified into three categories namely stress, crisis and emergency as indicated in the table below.

Category Coping Strategy

Stress Borrowing money

Spending savings

Selling more non-productive livestock than usual

Selling household assets

Crisis Selling productive assets

Withdrawing children from school

Reducing non-food expenditure

Emergency Selling land

Begging for food

Selling the last breeding stock to buy food 164 Households Engaging in Livelihoods Coping Strategies 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 11 7 9 8 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 5 5 7 6 5 5 4 6 4 1 0 2 2 1 1 4 3 2 2 3 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South stress crisis emergency

• About 4% of households in the province reported using emergency coping strategies.

• The proportion of households that resorted to emergency coping mechanisms was high in Beitbridge (9%), followed by Bulilima, Insiza and Matobo at 5%.

165 Households Engaging in Livelihood Based Coping Strategies 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 25 20 15 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 12 9 11 6 10 4 3 4 0 Stress Crisis Emergency 2019 2020 2021

• There was a decrease in the proportion of households engaging in the various livelihood based coping strategies over the last three years.

166 Households Maximum Livelihoods Coping Strategies 100 2 1 5 0 21 5 5 2 4 9 1 3 6 3 4 90 8 5 4 6 7 7 80 11 70

50 93 96 92 86 89 87 40 82 73 30

Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 20

0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South not coping stress crisis emergency

• The majority (87%) of households did not use any coping strategies to maintain their access to food and other basic goods and services.

• Gwanda had the most households that did not engage in any livelihood coping strategies (96%). 167 Complementary Feeding

168 Complementary Feeding Practices Based on Seven Food Groups

100 90 80 70 60 56

50 44 44 43 40 37 31 31 29 27 30 22 23 22 19 20 19 16 19 Proportion of Children (%) Childrenof Proportion 20 15 11 9 7 10 10 4 3 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Minimum Meal Frequency Minimum Dietary Diversity Minimum Acceptable Diet

• Mangwe had the highest Minimum meal frequency at 56.3% as well as MAD at 18.8%. • A minimum acceptable diet is an indicator that combines information on children who received the minimum dietary diversity and the minimum meal frequency. It is essential to ensure appropriate growth and development for children aged 6-23 months.

169 Child Nutrition Status

170 Continued Breastfeeding Beyond 1 year

100 90 80 76 74 70 70 66 67 64 61 62 60 57 50 40 30

Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 20 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

• Nationally, 67% of the children continued to be breastfed beyond 1 year. • Close to 64% of children in Matabeleland South were breastfed beyond 1 year.

171 Early Initiation of Breastfeeding

100 90 90 90 90 85 88 86 81 82 81 80 70 60 50 40 30

Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 20 10 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

• Nationally, the proportion of children who were initiated into breastfeeding within an hour, as per recommended practice, was 86% • Matabeleland South together with Mashonaland East had the lowest proportions of children initiated into breastfeeding within an hour at 81% respectively.

172 Child Illness 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 33 33 27 26 30 21 22 23 20 16 15 17

Proportion of children (%) children of Proportion 10 11 10 10 8 6 7 10 5 5 2 3 5 3 6 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

Cough Diarrhoea Fever

• Childhood illness has a negative impact on dietary intake and nutrient utilization among children. • Prevalence of child illness was assessed as presence of illness during the two weeks preceding the survey. • Umzingwane and Bulilima had highest proportion of children who had cough (33%). • Bulilima had highest proportion of children with fever (21%) and diarrhoea (11%).

173 Recommended Vitamin A Supplementation Schedule for Children 6–59 Months of Age

Target group Infants 6–11 months of age Children 12–59 months of age

Dose 100 000 IU 200 000 IU

Frequency Once a year Twice a year (Every 6 months)

Route of administration Oral

174 Children Aged 6-59 Months who Received the Recommended Dose of Vitamin A 100 94 94 100 92 89 91 90 88 80 73 76 73 66 70 61 63 57 59 56 60 51 52 52 47 49 50 43 38 40 34 30

20 Proportion of Children (%) Children of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South 6-11 months 12-59 months 6-59 months Target

• The proportions of children who received the recommended dose of Vitamin A in the past 12 months were: 91% for 6-11 months; 52% for 12-59 months and 56% for the children 6-59 months.

• In Matabeleland South, 4 of the 7 districts reached the recommended target of 90% for children 6-11 months.

• Mangwe (76%) had the highest proportion of children 6-59 months who received recommended Vitamin A doses and Gwanda (38%) had the lowest. 175 Acute Malnutrition by District Based on MUAC Measurements

100

20 5.3 4.2 4.0 Proportion of Children (%) Children of Proportion 3.3 2.5 0.8 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.3 2.7 2.5 1.7 0.8 2.5 1.3 1.2 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South GAM MAM SAM

• The provincial GAM rate was 2.5 which is below the WHO threshold of 5%. • Insiza had the highest GAM rates of 5.3% which was above the WHO threshold.

176 Gender Based Violence (GBV)

177 Forms of Gender Based Violence

Physical Abuse (%) Sexual Abuse (%) Refused to Refused to District N No Yes answer No Yes answer

Manicaland 1741 94.3 3.7 2.0 97.6 0.6 1.8

Mash Central 1999 96.2 3.5 0.3 99.0 0.7 0.3

Mash East 2257 96.6 2.8 0.5 99.1 0.6 0.3

Mash West 1722 95.9 3.1 1.0 98.3 0.8 0.9

Masvingo 1747 97.2 2.4 0.4 99.0 0.6 0.5

Mat North 1747 97.0 1.9 1.1 98.2 0.7 1.1

Mat South 1736 97.3 1.6 1.1 98.8 0.2 1.0

Midlands 1999 95.7 3.8 0.5 98.5 0.9 0.6

National 14948 96.3 2.9 0.8 98.6 0.6 0.8

• Nationally, 2.9% of the respondents reported having experienced physical abuse while 0.6% reported to have experienced sexual abuse. 178 Victims of GBV who Reported

100

40 29 31 30 25

22 Proportion of Households (%) Householdsof Proportion 20 15 16

10 3 5 0 0 Manicaland Mash Central Mash East Mash West Mat North Mat South Midlands Masvingo National

• Of those who experienced GBV, 22% reported the incidents. • In Matabeleland South, close to 25% of victims of GBV reported the abuse.

179 Sources of GBV Services

One stop Centre 1

Church 2

Relatives/Friends 2

UN/NGO 5

Health facility 16

Other 32

Victim friendly unit 43

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of respondents (%)

• The highest proportion of respondents (43%) got a service from the Victim Friendly Unit. 180 Spousal Violence

181 Incidence of Spousal Violence

Sexual abuse Physical abuse Emotional abuse Economical abuse Province (%) (%) (%) (%) N Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1389 2 3 5 5 9 9 6 6 Manicaland Mash 1766 1 2 3 4 8 7 5 4 Central 2042 1 1 3 2 7 7 5 3 Mash East 1322 1 2 2 3 6 9 3 5 Mash West 1562 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 Masvingo 1464 1 0 2 1 3 3 3 3 Mat North 1627 2 1 4 3 7 5 5 4 Mat South 1597 0 1 2 1 4 4 3 2 Midlands 12769 1 2 3 3 6 6 4 4 National • There was high incidence of emotional abuse among spouses, 6% for males and 6% for females nationally. • Generally, emotional abuse was high for both males and females while sexual abuse had the lowest reported incidents.

182 Forms of Spousal Violence

10% 28% 21%

41%

Sexual abuse Physical abuse Emotional abuse Economical abuse

• Emotional abuse (41%) was the most prevalent form of abuse among spouses. • Sexual abuse was the least reported with 10%. 183 Reported Incidence of Spousal Violence 100 0 0 03 3 1 13 7 4 9 10 90 13 8 3 80 43 32 18 36 70 64 44 44 44 60 8 50 11 32 7 2 40 2 0 13

Proportion of victims (%) victims of Proportion 30 30 36 44 13 27 20 29 37 34 10 19 16 7 12 10 11 0 3 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Sexual Physical Emotional Economical Police Relatives Health facility No one Church Other

• Most victims of sexual abuse did not report to anyone, males 64% and females 44%. • Physical violence was mostly reported to the police by females (34%) and males either did not report (43%) or reported to relatives (30%). 184 • Emotional and economical violence were either reported to no one or to relatives by both males and females. Victims who Sought Medical Attention as a Result of Spousal Violence Sexual Physical Emotional

Province Suffered abuse Sought medical Suffered abuse Sought medical Suffered abuse Sought medical (%) attention (%) (%) attention (%) (%) attention (%) Manicaland 3 18 5 19 9 18 Mash Central 2 10 4 33 8 18 Mash East 1 12 3 17 7 16 Mash West 2 9 3 17 8 26 Masvingo 1 0 2 15 3 15 Mat North 1 0 1 16 3 14 Mat South 2 22 3 21 6 13 Midlands 1 16 2 17 4 22 National 1 12 3 20 6 18

• Medical attention was sought by 12% of those who suffered sexual violence, 20% for physical and 18% for emotional violence. 185 COVID-19 and Livelihoods

186 Proportion of households that ever Heard About COVID-19

99 98 98 99 98 100 96 97 98 97 97 92 91 91 92 90 82 79 80 70 60 50 40

30 Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion 20 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South 2020 2021

• Beitbridge (79%) and Insiza (82%) had the lowest proportion of households that had heard about COVID-19.

187 Sources of COVID-19 Information Current Sources Preferred Future Sources

Road shows 1 Social media 3 Vehicles moving with hailers 2 Posters 3 Television 3 Newspapers 5 Print media 10 Television 5 Churches 5 Workshop 11 Traditional leaders 7 Opinion leaders 14 Non-Governmental Organisations… 8 Social gathering 10 Posters 14 Social media 14 Radio 26 Health worker 31 Community Health Workers/Health… 47 Community/Village health… 69 Radio 53 Clinic/ Health facility 74 Friends and relatives 59

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Proportion of households (%) Proportion of households (%)

• The main sources of COVID-19 information in the province were reported to be the friends and relatives (59%), radio (53%) and Community Health Workers/ Health Volunteers (47%).

• The main preferred future sources of information on COVID-19 in the province were reported to be: clinic/health facility (74%), community/village 188 health workers (69%) and radio (26%). COVID-19 Toll-free Numbers Awareness of the Availability of Toll- Knowledge of Toll-free Numbers free Numbers 100 100 100 95 90 100 88 90 87 91 80 90 77 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 23 30 24 20 11 6 6 10 5 8 20 14 15 12 12 10 3 1 8 10 7 6 0

Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion Proportion of households (%) households of Proportion

2019 2023 393 None of the above

• The proportion of households which were aware of the existence of the COVID-19 toll free lines in the province was 12%, with Umzingwane (24%) reporting the highest prevalence. About 88% of the households in the province were not aware the existence of the tollfree numbers and are of concern.

• Of those who were aware of the availability of toll free numbers, the most common toll free number was 2019 (91%) at provincial level hence need for more awareness of the existence of the other lines. 189 Effects of COVID-19 on Livelihoods Beitbridge Bulilima Gwanda Insiza Mangwe Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Effect (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Loss of business income 10 2 6 39 10 12 25 14

Loss of employment 5 18 2 15 7 8 9 9

Failed to access health facility 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 1

Failed to access basic commodities 7 12 15 17 21 19 5 14

Reduced sources of income 37 32 54 29 76 54 32 45

Reduced salaries 16 9 2 3 2 2 3 5

Reduced food sources 81 35 79 31 64 44 38 53

Gender-based violence (GBV) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Restricted access to agricultural markets 3 8 4 4 0 0 20 6 • At provincial level, the main effects of COVID-19 on livelihoods were reduction in food sources (53%) and sources of income (45%) leading to increased vulnerabilities.

• Beitbridge (81%) and Gwanda (79%) had the highest proportion of households that reported reduction in food sources, while Mangwe (76%) reported reduction in sources of income. Most of the impacts could be attributed to the restrictive measures. 190 Household COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

20 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion 10 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South None Having serious reactions Illness Other

• The majority of the households indicated no concern about the COVID-19 vaccine (55.7%). • Fear of Illness (23.2%) was the most stated concern.

191 Shocks and Stressors

192 Proportion of Households Experiencing Shocks

100 90 80 70 59.1 60 50 44.7 40 29.1 26.2 30 20.2 18.7 20 14.1 13.1 11.5 8.7 8.4 8.2 6.3 5.9 5.5 10 3.5 3.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion

• Water logging (59.1%), cash shortages (44.7%) and drought (29.1%) were the most prevalent shocks experienced by households. 193 Number of Shocks/Stressors Experienced by Households 7.0 6.4

6.0

5.0

4.0

2.9 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.5

2.0 1.6 1.6 Number of Shocks/Stressors of Number

1.0

0.0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South

• Beitbridge (6.4), Umzingwane (2.9) and Gwanda (2.8) had the highest average number of shocks. 194 Severity of Shocks 100 2 2 2 1 3 3 4 3 7 10 6 8 14 13 90 15 14 18 19 17 20 18 21 25 17 24 27 29 80 30 43 30 35 70 20 41 60 25 43 43 53 36 50 100 100 50 84 83 82 40 80 80 79 75 73 67 43 30 60 60 60 51 47 Proportion of households (%) householdsof Proportion 20 38 36 36 33 25 10 14 0

Severe Moderate Minor/Mild

• Malaria diseases incidents, cancer diseases incidents (100%), and death of main income earner (84%) were reported to have had the most severe impact on households. 195 Average Shock Exposure Index

20.0 18.1 18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0 9.3 8.9

Index 8.5 7.8 8.0 7.0 5.8 6.0 4.5 4.0

2.0

0.0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South • Shock exposure index was calculated by multiplying number of shocks experienced with impact severity of the shock to the household. • Beitbridge (18.1%) Umzingwane (9.3%)and Mangwe (8.5%) had the highest shock exposure index. 196 Households’ Perception of their Ability to Cope with Shocks 100 5 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 2 0 3 90 9 16 17 20 28 28 80 0 23 33 45 46 46 70 52 53 56 57 58 60 64 60 64 69 70 60 29 60 50 38 33 64 67 100 40 80 72 30 55 54 50 20 46 44 43 43 40 39 39 36 35 34 33 33 31 30 27 10 21 17

0 Proportion of Households (%) Households of Proportion

Unable to cope Able to cope with difficulty Able to cope without difficulty

• The majority of households perceived inability to cope with diseases, livelihoods and weather-related shocks. 197 Comparison Between Shock Exposure and Ability to Cope

20.0 18.1 18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0 9.2 9.3 8.5 8.9 Index 7.8 8.0 7.0 5.8 6.3 6.0 5.4 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.9 3.8 4.0 3.3

2.0

0.0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Shock exposure index Ability to cope index

• Shock exposure was higher than the ability to cope across all districts. • Households continue to be vulnerable to shocks and stressors and are not able to cope on their own. 198 Food Security

199 Food Security Dimensions

Figure 3: Dimensions of Food Security (Jones et al., 2013)

200 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Food security exists when all people at all times, have physical, social and economic access to food which is safe and consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meet their dietary needs and food preferences and it is supported by an environment of adequate sanitation, health services and care allowing for a healthy and active life (Food and Nutrition Security Policy, 2012).

• The four dimensions of food security as give in Figure 3 are: • Availability of food • Access to food • The safe and healthy utilization of food • The stability of food availability, access and utilization

201 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Each of the surveyed households’ minimum expenditure or the emergency nutrition sensitive food basket

was computed from the following annual food basket requirement for an individual:

Food Items Individual Annual Requirement Maize Grain (Kgs) 148 Rice (Kgs) 15 Ration meat (Kgs) 14.6 Milk (Litres) 36.5 Cooking Oil (Litres) 13.5 Peanuts (Kgs) 0.73 Cabbage (Heads) 15 Beans (Kgs) 7.3 Sugar (Kgs) 12.1

202 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Each of the surveyed households’ potential to acquire minimum expenditure food basket (Figure 3) was computed

by estimating the household's likely disposable income (both cash and non cash) in the 2021/22 consumption year

from the following possible income sources;

• Cereal stocks from the previous season;

• Own food crop production from the 2020/21 agricultural season;

• Potential income from own cash crop production;

• Potential income from livestock ;

• Potential income from casual labour and remittances; and

• Income from other sources such as gifts, pensions, gardening, formal and informal employment.

203 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Household Food Security Status

• The total minimum expenditure food basket that could be acquired by the household from the

cheapest available sources using its potential disposable income was then computed and compared to

the household’s minimum expenditure food basket.

• When the total minimum expenditure food basket that a household could acquire was greater than its

minimum expenditure food basket requirements, the household was deemed to be food secure. When

the converse was true, the household was defined as food insecure.

• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy

access was below its total minimum expenditure food basket requirements.

204 Food Security Analytical Framework

• Household Cereal Security Status

• From the total minimum expenditure food basket, the total energy that could be acquired by the

household from the cheapest available sources using its potential disposable income was also

extracted and compared to the household’s minimum energy requirements.

• When the potential energy a household could acquire was greater than its minimum energy

requirements, the household was deemed to be food secure. When the converse was true, the

household was defined as food insecure.

• The severity of household food insecurity was computed by the margin with which its potential energy

access was below its minimum energy requirements.

205 Food Insecurity Progression by Quarter

100 90 80 70 60 53 50 47 38 38 40 40 40 33 35 32 31 26 28 28 30 24 24 24 21 19 20 20

Proportion of Population (%) Population of Proportion 18 20 16 15 11 11 10 11 12 11 7 7 10 4 0 Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Mat South Apr - Jun Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar

• At Provincial level, 35% of the households in Matabeleland …………will be food insecure during the peak hunger season (January-March 2022). • Bulilima (53%), Gwanda (40%) and Umzingwane (40%) are the districts that will have more food insecure households during the hunger period. 206 Food Insecurity Population by District

Food Insecure Population District Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Beitbridge 14,536 22,186 29,836 Bulilima 38,883 48,296 54,027 Mangwe 15,748 20,897 28,468 Gwanda 32,360 45,303 53,933 Insiza 13,804 19,878 23,743 Matobo 11,916 20,134 24,654 Umzingwane 15,504 23,256 30,388 Mat South 144,985 203,145 251,335

• At Provincial level, 251,335 people will be food insecure during the peak hunger period.

207 Cereal Requirements by District by Quarter

Cereal Requirements (MT) District Jul - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Beitbridge 538 821 1104 Bulilima 1439 1787 1999 Mangwe 583 773 1053 Gwanda 1197 1676 1996 Insiza 511 735 879 Matobo 441 745 912 Umzingwane 574 860 1124 Mat South 5364 7516 9299 • At Provincial level 9,299 MT of cereal will be required to feed the food insecure population in Matabeleland South during the peak hunger period (January-March 2022).

208 Community Development Challenges and Priorities

209 Community Development Challenges Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Development Challenges (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Mat South (%) Prohibitive By-laws 16.7 0 20 5.6 36.4 0 9.5 11.2 Lack of income generating projects 16.7 5 13.3 5.6 18.2 28.6 9.5 11.2 Drought 0 20 6.7 11.1 0 14.3 14.3 11.2 Poor road infrastructure 0 5 13.3 11.1 0 0 0 5.1 Poor Water and sanitation facilities 0 10 0 11.1 0 0 4.8 5.1 Lack of /limited Water for crop and livestock production 0 10 0 11.1 0 0 4.8 5.1 Corruption 16.7 0 0 0 9.1 14.3 4.8 4.1 No primary/secondary school in the ward 0 10 0 5.6 0 0 4.8 4.1 Fewer or no vocational training centres 0 0 6.7 0 9.1 0 9.5 4.1 Poor/ lack of Health and infrastructure 0 10 6.7 5.6 0 0 0 4.1 Livestock diseases 0 5 0 5.6 9.1 0 4.8 4.1 Unemployment 0 0 13.3 5.6 0 14.3 0 4.1 Poor Information Communication Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 9.5 3.1 Lack of Irrigation infrastructure 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 Shortage of cash 0 0 6.7 0 0 0 9.5 3.1 Lack of/ limited Water for domestic use 0 0 0 11.1 0 0 4.8 3.1 Draught Power shortage 16.7 0 0 0 9.1 0 0 2 Drug Abuse 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Livestock theft 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 Lack of /intermittent Electricity supply 0 0 6.7 0 0 0 0 1 High food prices 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.8 1 • The most common challenges stated by communities included prohibitive bylaws, lack of income generating projects and drought all at 11.2%. 210 Community Development Priorities

Beitbridge Bulilima Mangwe Gwanda Insiza Matobo Umzingwane Development Priority (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Mat South (%) Water Supply- boreholes, piped water schemes 7.7 18.8 4.8 20 8.3 18.2 13.6 12.8 Road infrastructure development 3.8 6.3 14.3 16 25 9.1 13.6 12 Dams/Water reservoirs construction 7.7 12.5 9.5 20 0 18.2 9.1 11.3 Irrigation infrastructure development 7.7 18.8 14.3 8 16.7 0 13.6 11.3 Education and related infrastructure improvement 0 18.8 4.8 8 8.3 0 9.1 6.8 Health services and related infrastructure improvement 3.8 12.5 0 12 8.3 18.2 0 6.8 Income Generation Projects promotion 3.8 6.3 14.3 4 0 0 13.6 6.8 Employment creation 3.8 0 14.3 0 16.7 0 0 4.5 Livestock restocking 15.4 0 4.8 0 0 9.1 0 4.5 Vocational Training Centres 3.8 0 9.5 4 8.3 0 4.5 4.5 Electricity infrastructure development 3.8 0 9.5 0 0 9.1 4.5 3.8 Agricultural markets availability and access development 7.7 6.3 0 0 0 0 9.1 3.8 Skills and capacity Development 11.5 0 0 4 0 0 4.5 3.8 Control of wildlife 11.5 0 0 0 8.3 0 0 3 Livestock disease surveillance and control 7.7 0 0 0 0 18.2 0 3 Other 0 0 0 4 0 0 4.5 1.5 • Most communities prioritized increased water supply (12.8%), Road Infrastructure and Development (12%), Dam construction (11.3%) and Irrigation infrastructure development (11.3%). • It is important to note that most of these priorities are water related. 211 Conclusions and Recommendations

212 Conclusions and Recommendations

• At provincial level, 22% of the households reported their children had been sent away from school due to non-payment of school fees. There is a need for the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education to enforce implementation, monitoring and evaluation of national policies related to the promotion of universal access to education. Special attention needs to be paid to Umzingwane with 31% of the households reporting that their children had been sent away from school.

• The proportion of households with at least one member suffering from chronic illnesses was high in Matabeleland South with HIV being reported in 37% of the households and hypertension being reported in 25.8% of the households. These households were facing challenges with accessing medication mainly due to non-affordability of medication and lack of foreign currency to purchase medication. The Ministry of Health and Child Care together with partners should enhance subsidising medication for chronic illnesses such as hypertension and increasing access to medication in satellite health facilities.

• The proportion of households traveling more than 5 kilometres to their nearest health facility and/or primary school is relatively higher in resettlement areas. There is a need for smart deployment of devolution funds in the establishment of schools, health facilities and other social amenities to ease pressure on existing social services and improve accessibility of the same.

213 Conclusions and Recommendations

• Gender Based Violence remains a challenge with 1.6% of the respondents reporting having experienced physical abuse. To mitigate against forms of domestic violence, there is need for extensive social marketing to raise awareness of the phenomenon and promote behaviour change amongst both males and females.

• Cereal sufficiency had improved across the province. However, Mangwe and Beitbridge may face cereal access issues during peak hunger period (January-March 2022). Government and its Development Partners should consider improving cereal access in those two districts during the lean season.

• Households’ access to Food and Nutrition Security Infrastructure is critical in promoting food production, preservation and utilisation in households.

• There are a number of partially functional and non-functional irrigation schemes in Matabeleland South. To this end, there is need to intensify irrigation rehabilitation and detailed feasibility studies to identify appropriate irrigation technologies to unlock the potential of dry productive farming communities who rely heavily on rain-fed agricultural production.

• Close to 64% of households interviewed reported that they had knowledge of Pfumvudza/Intwasa, whilst those that reported to have practised Pfumvudza/Intwasa made up 31% of the sample. It is encouraging to note that such smart agricultural practices advocated for through the Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme help farmers improve on such issues as plant density and use of mulch among other innovative methods.

214 Conclusions and Recommendations

• Government should consider linking food assistance programmes to preparedness for the upcoming farming season through timeous

distribution of crop and livestock inputs.

• Proportions of households accessing loans remain low and these were predominantly given by family and friends; and remain largely

informal. Financial inclusion in the formal institutions such as Banks, SACCOs and microfinance remains largely constrained. This may be

stemming from the fact that most of these households are borrowing for consumption hence presenting a credit risk to the formal financial

institutions.

• There is a relatively high proportion of households using surface water (16%). A paradigm shift from primarily relying on unimproved drinking water sources to improved communal water points and improved piped water into households using renewable energy sources (solar) is recommended.

• There is a high proportion of households practising open defaecation (33%). Elimination of open defecation through availing of resources (both soft and hardware) for the construction of latrines using locally available resources is recommended. Customised service standards should reconcile with technology choice and service levels with the economic capacity of user groups.

• Production indices were too low for cattle and goats. Nevertheless, approximately 66% of households in the province had received livestock advice from extension officers.

215 Conclusions and Recommendations

• There is need to scale-up interventions in the livestock sector by Government and Development Partners especially pursuing restocking, distribution of tick-grease and other livestock chemicals, as well as installation of irrigation infrastructure for fodder production to strengthen household resilience against drought and disease induced livestock morbidity and mortality. It is also important to invest in capacity building of extension personnel for instance in terms of mobility, communication and other related issues. • Close to 42% of households had poor consumption patterns adequate to meet their micronutrient requirements, with Beitbridge and Matobo having the highest proportions at 60%. A multisectoral approach to address and strengthen interventions to enhance the nutritional content of family diets is required. Strategies to employ include products of diverse plant and animal food sources, promotion of consumption of diverse diets and value addition on of locally available foods. • Effort in improving nutrition indices is a challenge as the nutrition section is understaffed. There is need to empower the nutrition function to address nutrition sensitive and nutrition specific issues obtaining in the various wards and districts through provision of additional staff, and tools to enhance reach and impact of nutrition interventions. • Considering that most shocks were weather and economy related, appropriate agro-based interventions would mitigate adverse impacts.

216 Supported by

ZIMBABWE

ZimVAC is Coordinated by the Food and Nutrition Council (FNC), Housed at SIRDC: 1574 Alpes Road, Hatcliffe, Harare Tel: +263-242-862586/ +263-242-862025. Website: www.fnc.org.zw. Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @FNCZimbabwe. Instagram: fnc_zim. Facebook: @FNCZimbabwe